PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
Actually....it's long past the time....
Well, now that America has suffered through another span inflicted on us by the 'Hope and Change Suckers,' the solution to the problems of poverty and the 'underclass' are back to the drawing board.
1. Looking at evidence, such as "...real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession." (Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard), one is left with two possible explanations:
a) having been given every option that the Left asked for, their ideas just don't work, ....or
b) the Progressive/Liberal/socialist in charge is a totally incompetent dunce.
2. Step back and realize that if the dilemma could be boiled down to it's simplest it would be stated thusly: the "family," as we have known it throughout Western history, seems terminal. The vast majority of children of the group at issue are born out of wedlock.
The father, as defined by the most ordinary of roles: lives with the mother, goes to work every day, brings home a weekly paycheck, and show his children by example how a responsible male adult is supposed to behave, has nearly vanished.
a. In the inner city the drug dealer is lionized, while the man who mops floors is scorned.
b. The schoolgirl who gets pregnant is envied, while the one who studies hard is taunted.
Which Liberal/Progressive/Democrat programs have addressed, much less made a dent, in these problems?
3. Any who are conversant with the problems could very easily present the argument that Liberal/Progressive/Democrat policies created, or at the least, exacerbated the problems. Midnight basketball, anyone?
4. Yet, there are actually voters so stupid that they claim that not enough is spent to alleviate poverty!!!
a. "... this year the federal government will spend more than $668 billion on at least 126different programs to fight poverty. And that does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments, which adds $284 billion to that figure.
In total, the United States spends nearly $1 trillion every year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three."
Scribd
5. On the most basic level....the claim of poor children starving.... "It is nearly impossible in the contemporary United States for a mother to be left without a way to provide her children with a decent diet."
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion."
a. As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms.
Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels.
Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America
b. Once again, know-it-all Liberal programs:
" The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which required public schools to follow new nutritional guidelines....They are high school students, and their complaint is about lunch healthier, smaller and more expensive than ever." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/n...ce-student-rejection.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Kids are throwing these mandated meals into the waste baskets.
6. So, why is it that these vast amounts of money don't cure poverty?
Because most of it doesn't get to 'the poor' at all! It goes to the poverty industry- bureaucrats, caseworkers, service providers, and the myriad vendors in the private sector who plan, implement and evaluate social programs on government contracts. And even those funds that do get to said individuals do the opposite of what is promised.
a. What happens when you guarantee an income?
" The Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which analyzed the SIME/DIME findings, found stronger work disincentive effects, ranging from an average 9 percent work reduction for husbands to an average 18 percent reduction for wives..... instead of promoting family stability (the presumed result of extending benefits to two-parent working families on an equal basis), the NITs seemed to increase family breakup." Negative Income Tax, by Jodie T. Allen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
Get it?
Liberal/Progressive/Democrat policies do exactly the opposite of what they aim at.
To put the above in one bullet-point:
>Anyone who isnt a liberal by age 20 has no heart. Anyone who isnt a conservative by age 40 has no brain.
Winston Churchill
Well, now that America has suffered through another span inflicted on us by the 'Hope and Change Suckers,' the solution to the problems of poverty and the 'underclass' are back to the drawing board.
1. Looking at evidence, such as "...real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession." (Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard), one is left with two possible explanations:
a) having been given every option that the Left asked for, their ideas just don't work, ....or
b) the Progressive/Liberal/socialist in charge is a totally incompetent dunce.
2. Step back and realize that if the dilemma could be boiled down to it's simplest it would be stated thusly: the "family," as we have known it throughout Western history, seems terminal. The vast majority of children of the group at issue are born out of wedlock.
The father, as defined by the most ordinary of roles: lives with the mother, goes to work every day, brings home a weekly paycheck, and show his children by example how a responsible male adult is supposed to behave, has nearly vanished.
a. In the inner city the drug dealer is lionized, while the man who mops floors is scorned.
b. The schoolgirl who gets pregnant is envied, while the one who studies hard is taunted.
Which Liberal/Progressive/Democrat programs have addressed, much less made a dent, in these problems?
3. Any who are conversant with the problems could very easily present the argument that Liberal/Progressive/Democrat policies created, or at the least, exacerbated the problems. Midnight basketball, anyone?
4. Yet, there are actually voters so stupid that they claim that not enough is spent to alleviate poverty!!!
a. "... this year the federal government will spend more than $668 billion on at least 126different programs to fight poverty. And that does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments, which adds $284 billion to that figure.
In total, the United States spends nearly $1 trillion every year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three."
Scribd
5. On the most basic level....the claim of poor children starving.... "It is nearly impossible in the contemporary United States for a mother to be left without a way to provide her children with a decent diet."
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion."
a. As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms.
Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels.
Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America
b. Once again, know-it-all Liberal programs:
" The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which required public schools to follow new nutritional guidelines....They are high school students, and their complaint is about lunch healthier, smaller and more expensive than ever." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/n...ce-student-rejection.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Kids are throwing these mandated meals into the waste baskets.
6. So, why is it that these vast amounts of money don't cure poverty?
Because most of it doesn't get to 'the poor' at all! It goes to the poverty industry- bureaucrats, caseworkers, service providers, and the myriad vendors in the private sector who plan, implement and evaluate social programs on government contracts. And even those funds that do get to said individuals do the opposite of what is promised.
a. What happens when you guarantee an income?
" The Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which analyzed the SIME/DIME findings, found stronger work disincentive effects, ranging from an average 9 percent work reduction for husbands to an average 18 percent reduction for wives..... instead of promoting family stability (the presumed result of extending benefits to two-parent working families on an equal basis), the NITs seemed to increase family breakup." Negative Income Tax, by Jodie T. Allen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
Get it?
Liberal/Progressive/Democrat policies do exactly the opposite of what they aim at.
To put the above in one bullet-point:
>Anyone who isnt a liberal by age 20 has no heart. Anyone who isnt a conservative by age 40 has no brain.
Winston Churchill
