Where do republicans get this myth that Democrats believe welfare is the key to ending poverty?

[bripat9643]

They are an ignorant people. Lies are all they believe. It's their narrative.

I know. I can't help but come to the dramatic conclusion that it would be absolutely disasterous for a republican to win in 2016.

Probably. Although I cant't tell the difference any more.

According to CATO:

Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget

Corporate welfare in the federal budget costs taxpayers almost $100 billion a year.​

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SNAP benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2014​

A large number of so-called "corporate welfare" programs are socialist boondoggles create by liberals.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?

For being so well known....why is this the first time I have ever heard a liberal say this in the five years I've been here?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?

Welfare is part of what LBJ called "the war on poverty." That means it was intended to end poverty.

Well, to be honest, it was SOLD as a way to end poverty, but it was intended to be a way to perpetuate it.

No, it was and is intended to help poor people be less poor.

If it's the poverty programs in US that perpetuate poverty,

why hasn't poverty disappeared in the countries that don't have poverty programs?

 

[Cecilie1200]

They are an ignorant people. Lies are all they believe. It's their narrative.

I know. I can't help but come to the dramatic conclusion that it would be absolutely disasterous for a republican to win in 2016.

Probably. Although I cant't tell the difference any more.

According to CATO:

Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget

Corporate welfare in the federal budget costs taxpayers almost $100 billion a year.​

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SNAP benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2014​

A large number of so-called "corporate welfare" programs are socialist boondoggles create by liberals.

They really, REALLY want to pretend that conservatives are big fans of government cronyism. Never mind that it's conservatives who are the biggest opponents thereof.

 

[Contumacious]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?

HUH


WTF

FROM THE FATHER OF THE "WAR OF POVERTY" ONE LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON


"Unfortunately, many Americans live on the outskirts of hope--some because of their poverty, and some because of their color, and all too many because of both. Our task is to help replace their despair with opportunity.

This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America. I urge this Congress and all Americans to join with me in that effort.

It will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won. The richest Nation on earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it. One thousand dollars invested in salvaging an unemployable youth today can return $40,000 or more in his lifetime.

Poverty is a national problem, requiring improved national organization and support. But this attack, to be effective, must also be organized at the State and the local level and must be supported and directed by State and local efforts.

For the war against poverty will not be won here in Washington. It must be won in the field, in every private home, in every public office, from the courthouse to the White House.

The program I shall propose will emphasize this cooperative approach to help that one-fifth of all American families with incomes too small to even meet their basic needs.

Our chief weapons in a more pinpointed attack will be better schools, and better health, and better homes, and better training, and better job opportunities to help more Americans, especially young Americans, escape from squalor and misery and unemployment rolls where other citizens help to carry them"

 

[BULLDOG]

They are an ignorant people. Lies are all they believe. It's their narrative.

I know. I can't help but come to the dramatic conclusion that it would be absolutely disasterous for a republican to win in 2016.

Probably. Although I cant't tell the difference any more.

your $870 figure is bullshit. How was it calculated?

Ask the Cato institute dumbass. They are the ones that put out the number.

 

[baileyn45]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?

I don't know anyone that thinks welfare programs are intended to lift people out of poverty, including reps. I know a lot of people that believe welfare programs are a way to get people hooked on hand outs and therefore vote for dems in the hope of increasing those hand outs. Personally I don't have a problem with food stamps, other than how easy it is to use them for things other than food.

As far as wage stagnation, there are many issues at play, not the least of which is the cost of employment. A number of years ago I read a report from the SBA about the costs to an employer to meet Fed regs. While the numbers varied from industry to industry the worst was in manufacturing. They put the number at 13k per employee per year. And that was for large employers, more than 500 employees. For small mfrs it was 22k. Makes it difficult to compete with the rest of the world. That's my biggest problem with the political left in this country, they never want to look at the true costs of the legislation they propose. Minimum wage is a perfect example. Raise it to 15/hr and there will be losers, period. The left will of course use the tried and true response that "it's all right wing lies".

 

[daws101]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?

For being so well known....why is this the first time I have ever heard a liberal say this in the five years I've been here?

Could it be that you've not had your head out of your ass until now?

 

[hortysir]

Nancy Pelosi~~Let me say that unemployment insurance… is one of the biggest stimuluses (sic) to our economy. Economists will tell you, this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and it’s job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.

 

[Billy000]

They are an ignorant people. Lies are all they believe. It's their narrative.

I know. I can't help but come to the dramatic conclusion that it would be absolutely disasterous for a republican to win in 2016.

Probably. Although I cant't tell the difference any more.

According to CATO:

Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget

Corporate welfare in the federal budget costs taxpayers almost $100 billion a year.​

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SNAP benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2014​

A large number of so-called "corporate welfare" programs are socialist boondoggles create by liberals.

Are you so stupid to not know how republicans have contributed to the corporate welfare issue? Can republicans do no wrong in your eyes? Is that your warped thinking?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Fighting the Democrat "War on Poverty" for 50 years, what's the exit strategy?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?

I don't know anyone that thinks welfare programs are intended to lift people out of poverty, including reps. I know a lot of people that believe welfare programs are a way to get people hooked on hand outs and therefore vote for dems in the hope of increasing those hand outs. Personally I don't have a problem with food stamps, other than how easy it is to use them for things other than food.

As far as wage stagnation, there are many issues at play, not the least of which is the cost of employment. A number of years ago I read a report from the SBA about the costs to an employer to meet Fed regs. While the numbers varied from industry to industry the worst was in manufacturing. They put the number at 13k per employee per year. And that was for large employers, more than 500 employees. For small mfrs it was 22k. Makes it difficult to compete with the rest of the world. That's my biggest problem with the political left in this country, they never want to look at the true costs of the legislation they propose. Minimum wage is a perfect example. Raise it to 15/hr and there will be losers, period. The left will of course use the tried and true response that "it's all right wing lies".

Absolutely.

What are the costs to an employer that he (or she) doesn't have to deal with overseas?

*Holiday pay
*Vacations
*Medical care insurance
*matching employees Medicare contributions
*Matching employees Social Security contributions
*Unemployment insurance
*Workman's Compensation insurance
*Unions

I'm sure there are some I didn't think of, but there are huge costs that most people don't consider. You're right, they just look at wages.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?

Welfare is part of what LBJ called "the war on poverty." That means it was intended to end poverty.

Well, to be honest, it was SOLD as a way to end poverty, but it was intended to be a way to perpetuate it.

No, it was and is intended to help poor people be less poor.

If it's the poverty programs in US that perpetuate poverty,

why hasn't poverty disappeared in the countries that don't have poverty programs?

In my opinion, one of the biggest problems we have in combatting poverty is our government promotes poverty.

In most cases, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Government gives incentives for poor people to have large families. The bigger the family, the bigger the HUD home in the suburbs, the bigger the welfare check, the bigger the SNAP's card.

In most cases, poor people only breed other poor people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They are an ignorant people. Lies are all they believe. It's their narrative.

I know. I can't help but come to the dramatic conclusion that it would be absolutely disasterous for a republican to win in 2016.

Probably. Although I cant't tell the difference any more.

According to CATO:

Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget

Corporate welfare in the federal budget costs taxpayers almost $100 billion a year.​

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SNAP benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2014​

A large number of so-called "corporate welfare" programs are socialist boondoggles create by liberals.

It depends on how one defines welfare too.

To me, welfare is giving something to somebody that they never had. Welfare is not taking less from somebody who would otherwise have given it to you.

 

[couch protester]

maybe this will help :

Bernie Sanders endorsing campaign speaker Killer Mike says kill police, "When you niggas gonna unite and kill the police Motha fuckas" Berine condones Killer Mike

 

[bripat9643]

They are an ignorant people. Lies are all they believe. It's their narrative.

I know. I can't help but come to the dramatic conclusion that it would be absolutely disasterous for a republican to win in 2016.

Probably. Although I cant't tell the difference any more.

According to CATO:

Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget

Corporate welfare in the federal budget costs taxpayers almost $100 billion a year.​

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SNAP benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2014​

A large number of so-called "corporate welfare" programs are socialist boondoggles create by liberals.

They really, REALLY want to pretend that conservatives are big fans of government cronyism. Never mind that it's conservatives who are the biggest opponents thereof.

Leftists are always accusing the right of their vices. If they had to tell the truth, what would the argue about?

 

[bripat9643]

They are an ignorant people. Lies are all they believe. It's their narrative.

I know. I can't help but come to the dramatic conclusion that it would be absolutely disasterous for a republican to win in 2016.

Probably. Although I cant't tell the difference any more.

your $870 figure is bullshit. How was it calculated?

Ask the Cato institute dumbass. They are the ones that put out the number.

Go read the article, dumbass. A lot of what they are calling "corporate welfare" are really programs to help the poor. There's also leftwing boondoggles like "clean energy." Then there are all the agricultural subsidies that the left wouldn't think of repealing.

 

[bripat9643]

They are an ignorant people. Lies are all they believe. It's their narrative.

I know. I can't help but come to the dramatic conclusion that it would be absolutely disasterous for a republican to win in 2016.

Probably. Although I cant't tell the difference any more.

According to CATO:

Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget

Corporate welfare in the federal budget costs taxpayers almost $100 billion a year.​

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SNAP benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2014​

A large number of so-called "corporate welfare" programs are socialist boondoggles create by liberals.

Are you so stupid to not know how republicans have contributed to the corporate welfare issue? Can republicans do no wrong in your eyes? Is that your warped thinking?

Democrats are responsible for more corporate welfare than Democrats. Republicans can definitely do wrong, like rubber stamping Democrat social programs.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Why are they having children if they can't afford to take care of them?

 

[BULLDOG]

They are an ignorant people. Lies are all they believe. It's their narrative.

I know. I can't help but come to the dramatic conclusion that it would be absolutely disasterous for a republican to win in 2016.

Probably. Although I cant't tell the difference any more.

your $870 figure is bullshit. How was it calculated?

Ask the Cato institute dumbass. They are the ones that put out the number.

Go read the article, dumbass. A lot of what they are calling "corporate welfare" are really programs to help the poor. There's also leftwing boondoggles like "clean energy." Then there are all the agricultural subsidies that the left wouldn't think of repealing.

Republican congressional members received $5,334,565, in farm subsidies. You tell me who is fighting to keep them in place.