The War On Poverty: Lost

[NYcarbineer]

If the money you pay in taxes builds a bridge across a river, which allows land to be developed and homes are built, stores are built, auto dealarships are built and jobs created for construction workers and cops and teachers and gardeners and cable installers and painters, plumbers, prostitutes and clerks, supervisors, managers and CEO's, the economy grows and grows. If you put you money into a CD today, you are lucky to earn more than the rate of inflation, and inflation is low.

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

Really?

What is the origin of parasitism?

Was it because you and your ilk hated to wake up early and earn a living?

.

Parasitism. You mean the shameless exploitation of workers by capitalists?

 

[Dan Daly]

Wars on nouns (poverty, drugs, terror) are never won, they just keep going and going and going

 

[kaz]

Labor and Capital both are required, but labor is both necessary and sufficient while Capital may be necessary it isn't sufficient by itself in terms of expanding the economy.

Explain how labor can "expand the economy" without capital. That's ridiculous. Who is going to work without compensation? Your Marxist ideology is ridiculous, even Communist countries have capital. Having capital has nothing to do with being capitalist.

Why would anyone expect to grow the economy without labor? What is the point of that observation that is disputed by no one and a rebuttal to nothing?

 

[PoliticalChic]

That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.

For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?

You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,

which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,

are around today, relative to the population.

And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,

so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

It was not lost if the counterfactual is that things would be much worse without it.

I asked, would the poor in American have been better off since 1965 if there had never been Medicaid, which happens to be the cornerstone of the war on poverty programs.

Prove they'd have been better off for the last 50 years. Prove they'd be better off NOW if Medicaid was ended.

Prove all of that and you'll be on your way to proving the war on poverty has been a failure;

on the other hand, if you can't prove any of that, your assertion is a failure.

$22 trillion of money stripped from the taxpayers, with no resultant diminution in the original problem...

What sort of imbecile would deny that that is failure and/or corruption of the worst kind....?

Raise your paw.

You've never been able to articulate a plan that would have worked better.

How would you have assisted low income Americans who needed healthcare for the last 50 years and got it from Medicaid?

"You've never been able to articulate a plan that would have worked better."

My plan was to show that the war on poverty was lost....mission accomplished.

Now, as far as you giving up, trying to change the subject...

You remind me of nothing so much as Confederate General Wise, chased by Union General Cox, referring to his retreat a 'retrograde movement' of his troops.


Pretty funny, your retrograde movement.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,

so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

It was not lost if the counterfactual is that things would be much worse without it.

I asked, would the poor in American have been better off since 1965 if there had never been Medicaid, which happens to be the cornerstone of the war on poverty programs.

Prove they'd have been better off for the last 50 years. Prove they'd be better off NOW if Medicaid was ended.

Prove all of that and you'll be on your way to proving the war on poverty has been a failure;

on the other hand, if you can't prove any of that, your assertion is a failure.

$22 trillion of money stripped from the taxpayers, with no resultant diminution in the original problem...

What sort of imbecile would deny that that is failure and/or corruption of the worst kind....?

Raise your paw.

You've never been able to articulate a plan that would have worked better.

How would you have assisted low income Americans who needed healthcare for the last 50 years and got it from Medicaid?

"You've never been able to articulate a plan that would have worked better."

My plan was to show that the war on poverty was lost....mission accomplished.

Now, as far as you giving up, trying to change the subject...

You remind me of nothing so much as Confederate General Wise, chased by Union General Cox, referring to his retreat a 'retrograde movement' of his troops.


Pretty funny, your retrograde movement.

I proved your premise was unsupported.

The war on poverty can as easily have kept things from being much worse,

which would make it a victory. You have offered nothing to refute that claim. Thus, my opinion carries just as much merit as yours.

 

[PoliticalChic]

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

It was not lost if the counterfactual is that things would be much worse without it.

I asked, would the poor in American have been better off since 1965 if there had never been Medicaid, which happens to be the cornerstone of the war on poverty programs.

Prove they'd have been better off for the last 50 years. Prove they'd be better off NOW if Medicaid was ended.

Prove all of that and you'll be on your way to proving the war on poverty has been a failure;

on the other hand, if you can't prove any of that, your assertion is a failure.

$22 trillion of money stripped from the taxpayers, with no resultant diminution in the original problem...

What sort of imbecile would deny that that is failure and/or corruption of the worst kind....?

Raise your paw.

You've never been able to articulate a plan that would have worked better.

How would you have assisted low income Americans who needed healthcare for the last 50 years and got it from Medicaid?

"You've never been able to articulate a plan that would have worked better."

My plan was to show that the war on poverty was lost....mission accomplished.

Now, as far as you giving up, trying to change the subject...

You remind me of nothing so much as Confederate General Wise, chased by Union General Cox, referring to his retreat a 'retrograde movement' of his troops.


Pretty funny, your retrograde movement.

I proved your premise was unsupported.

The war on poverty can as easily have kept things from being much worse,

which would make it a victory. You have offered nothing to refute that claim. Thus, my opinion carries just as much merit as yours.

While you've proven how stupid and dishonest you are, said proof was excessive and redundant.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Labor and Capital both are required, but labor is both necessary and sufficient while Capital may be necessary it isn't sufficient by itself in terms of expanding the economy.

Explain how labor can "expand the economy" without capital. That's ridiculous. Who is going to work without compensation? Your Marxist ideology is ridiculous, even Communist countries have capital. Having capital has nothing to do with being capitalist.

Why would anyone expect to grow the economy without labor? What is the point of that observation that is disputed by no one and a rebuttal to nothing?

Labor and Capital both are required, but labor is both necessary and sufficient while Capital may be necessary it isn't sufficient by itself in terms of expanding the economy.

Explain how labor can "expand the economy" without capital. That's ridiculous. Who is going to work without compensation? Your Marxist ideology is ridiculous, even Communist countries have capital. Having capital has nothing to do with being capitalist.

Why would anyone expect to grow the economy without labor? What is the point of that observation that is disputed by no one and a rebuttal to nothing?

Capital is necessary, as I stated, but when invested in foreign countries or hidden under the bed it does nothing for our economy. It must be put to work, and work is done by people, Money in your wallet does nothing, it must circulate; that was the point of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The "Ain't it Awful" crowd have no solutions. Do they care? Instead of whining, why have they no plan to solve the problem of poverty in America, or any of the myriad problems facing our country today? It seems placing blame and posting the same refrain - cut taxes, cut benefits, privatize everything - is all they have in their tool box.

 

[kaz]

Labor and Capital both are required, but labor is both necessary and sufficient while Capital may be necessary it isn't sufficient by itself in terms of expanding the economy.

Explain how labor can "expand the economy" without capital. That's ridiculous. Who is going to work without compensation? Your Marxist ideology is ridiculous, even Communist countries have capital. Having capital has nothing to do with being capitalist.

Why would anyone expect to grow the economy without labor? What is the point of that observation that is disputed by no one and a rebuttal to nothing?

Labor and Capital both are required, but labor is both necessary and sufficient while Capital may be necessary it isn't sufficient by itself in terms of expanding the economy.

Explain how labor can "expand the economy" without capital. That's ridiculous. Who is going to work without compensation? Your Marxist ideology is ridiculous, even Communist countries have capital. Having capital has nothing to do with being capitalist.

Why would anyone expect to grow the economy without labor? What is the point of that observation that is disputed by no one and a rebuttal to nothing?

Capital is necessary, as I stated, but when invested in foreign countries or hidden under the bed it does nothing for our economy. It must be put to work, and work is done by people, Money in your wallet does nothing, it must circulate; that was the point of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Money working to grow the economy means creating value. That is gone by the private sector, not government. Government destroys value. You never did grasp my lamp example. Lamps are not a waste of money, they give you light. But buying a lamp does not make you wealthier. A certain portion of your household budget goes to things like lamps, beds, pots and pans. That is like roads. I know you don't grasp I'm not an anarchist while you simultaneously think I'm a Republican, but I am for roads and infrastructure. Like I own lamps and a bed and pots and pans. But private industry creates value and makes us wealthy. And if we don't take care of a living first, then we don't have the money for our infrastructure. But you cannot confuse that with government creating wealth, it doesn't. Just like lamps cost money and reduce your wealth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The "Ain't it Awful" crowd have no solutions. Do they care? Instead of whining, why have they no plan to solve the problem of poverty in America, or any of the myriad problems facing our country today? It seems placing blame and posting the same refrain - cut taxes, cut benefits, privatize everything - is all they have in their tool box.

"The "Ain't it Awful" crowd have no solutions."

I certainly do!

And have offered them previously.

All Liberals/Progressives/Democrats should be prevented from holding public office by statute.

Where ever possible, any crime...down to and including j-walking, should result in exile.

A small group of same should be remanded to zoos, museums, and circus sideshows.


You, specifically, would be sent to Hollywood to star in "Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest,' playing, of course, all three roles.
No one else has the commensurate experience in said roles.

Following the above, to the letter, no exceptions, would result in immediate, and long term political, economic, and spiritual betterment for the nation.


I hope you agree......for the children.

 

[Dan Daly]

The "Ain't it Awful" crowd have no solutions. Do they care? Instead of whining, why have they no plan to solve the problem of poverty in America, or any of the myriad problems facing our country today? It seems placing blame and posting the same refrain - cut taxes, cut benefits, privatize everything - is all they have in their tool box.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

That simple solution seems to be beyond the grasp of statists who prefer to keep those in need dependent upon the state.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Labor and Capital both are required, but labor is both necessary and sufficient while Capital may be necessary it isn't sufficient by itself in terms of expanding the economy.

Explain how labor can "expand the economy" without capital. That's ridiculous. Who is going to work without compensation? Your Marxist ideology is ridiculous, even Communist countries have capital. Having capital has nothing to do with being capitalist.

Why would anyone expect to grow the economy without labor? What is the point of that observation that is disputed by no one and a rebuttal to nothing?

Labor and Capital both are required, but labor is both necessary and sufficient while Capital may be necessary it isn't sufficient by itself in terms of expanding the economy.

Explain how labor can "expand the economy" without capital. That's ridiculous. Who is going to work without compensation? Your Marxist ideology is ridiculous, even Communist countries have capital. Having capital has nothing to do with being capitalist.

Why would anyone expect to grow the economy without labor? What is the point of that observation that is disputed by no one and a rebuttal to nothing?

Capital is necessary, as I stated, but when invested in foreign countries or hidden under the bed it does nothing for our economy. It must be put to work, and work is done by people, Money in your wallet does nothing, it must circulate; that was the point of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Money working to grow the economy means creating value. That is gone by the private sector, not government. Government destroys value. .

What value does the government destroy? What does law enforcement destroy? What does public education destroy?

 

[Bfgrn]

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.

For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?

You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,

which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,

are around today, relative to the population.

And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,

so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.

For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?

You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,

which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,

are around today, relative to the population.

And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,

so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology.

No problem.

Scribd


Read the article and get back to me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.

For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?

You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,

which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,

are around today, relative to the population.

And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,

so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology.

The 22 trillion is misleading simply because the same money found it's way back into the economy.

Simple example: you give a family Medicaid. When they use the benefit, the money goes to the healthcare providers, who then spend the money back into the US economy, and the recipients of that spending thus further spend the money back into the US economy, etc., etc.

It's not as if that money simply disappeared.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was not lost if the counterfactual is that things would be much worse without it.

I asked, would the poor in American have been better off since 1965 if there had never been Medicaid, which happens to be the cornerstone of the war on poverty programs.

Prove they'd have been better off for the last 50 years. Prove they'd be better off NOW if Medicaid was ended.

Prove all of that and you'll be on your way to proving the war on poverty has been a failure;

on the other hand, if you can't prove any of that, your assertion is a failure.

$22 trillion of money stripped from the taxpayers, with no resultant diminution in the original problem...

What sort of imbecile would deny that that is failure and/or corruption of the worst kind....?

Raise your paw.

You've never been able to articulate a plan that would have worked better.

How would you have assisted low income Americans who needed healthcare for the last 50 years and got it from Medicaid?

"You've never been able to articulate a plan that would have worked better."

My plan was to show that the war on poverty was lost....mission accomplished.

Now, as far as you giving up, trying to change the subject...

You remind me of nothing so much as Confederate General Wise, chased by Union General Cox, referring to his retreat a 'retrograde movement' of his troops.


Pretty funny, your retrograde movement.

I proved your premise was unsupported.

The war on poverty can as easily have kept things from being much worse,

which would make it a victory. You have offered nothing to refute that claim. Thus, my opinion carries just as much merit as yours.

While you've proven how stupid and dishonest you are, said proof was excessive and redundant.

You've yet to tell me how poor and low income Americans receiving Medicaid would be better off if they had never received Medicaid.

Medicaid is the cornerstone of the war on poverty. Tell me how that has failed. Tell me how America would be better had it never existed.

Until you can prove that, your original argument has been refuted,

comprehensively.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The "Ain't it Awful" crowd have no solutions. Do they care? Instead of whining, why have they no plan to solve the problem of poverty in America, or any of the myriad problems facing our country today? It seems placing blame and posting the same refrain - cut taxes, cut benefits, privatize everything - is all they have in their tool box.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

That simple solution seems to be beyond the grasp of statists who prefer to keep those in need dependent upon the state.

"statists"? You lost all credibility with that one word.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.

For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?

You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,

which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,

are around today, relative to the population.

And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,

so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology.

The obvious other question is this, have lives been improved by the efforts to end poverty in America? I agree that the war on drugs is an abject failure, it has created a huge black market and criminal enterprise, costing local, state and federal agencies lots of money. Why is poverty attacked and why not use the Reagan Solution for drug abuse, "Just say Know"; this 'solution' didn't require much taxpayer money. Hey, great idea, let's simply tell the poor to just say no to being poor. Problem solved.

 

[Contumacious]

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

Really?

What is the origin of parasitism?

Was it because you and your ilk hated to wake up early and earn a living?

.

Parasitism. You mean the shameless exploitation of workers by capitalists?

Excuse me ding dong

As you very well know , if you dont want to be "exploited" (wink, wink) by a capitalist, you can stay home and let the welfare state politicians take care of your ass.

Taxpayers/producers on the other hand cann not escape from the Internal Robbery Squad.

.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

Really?

What is the origin of parasitism?

Was it because you and your ilk hated to wake up early and earn a living?

.

Parasitism. You mean the shameless exploitation of workers by capitalists?

Excuse me ding dong

As you very well know , if you dont want to be "exploited" (wink, wink) by a capitalist, you can stay home and let the welfare state politicians take care of your ass.

Taxpayers/producers on the other hand cann not escape from the Internal Robbery Squad.

.

.

Or, you can do it the democratic way. You can let the government of the People decide that capitalists will be limited in their ability to abuse their employees.