Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[NYcarbineer]

Who knows.

I think what FoxFyre is saying is that those programs would be replaced by other means for helping the poor.

Next, the poor today are not the poor ten years from now...people come and go from poverty.

Foxfyre wants the poor's needs to be shifted to charity from the government because he thinks that will lower his taxes. Everything else he says is just rationalization.

In all due respect I do not tell you what you want or what you think. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

You would be competent in the discussion if you referred to my expressed statement that I do not see the federal government as the proper or most effective or most efficient entity to address issues of poverty. I did not nor have I ever said there is no role for the state or local governments to address poverty. So you are dishonest with your statement as you expressed it. Would you care to revise and extend?

You just destroyed the core of your own argument. You claim that poverty programs do more harm than good, make people dependent, haven't won the war on poverty,

but then you say that it's okay if what the federal government does was done by the state or local government.

So which is it? Why would the state or local governments doing more harm than good be any different than the federal government doing it?

 

[RightDown]

We have had a reasonably civil and civilized discussion up to this point. I will respectfully request that those who do not appreciate that to find another thread to participate in. I will respectfully ask those who do appreciate that to ignore those who don't. That should allow us to keep the discussion productive and interesting to all.

Stop posting rigged graphes and polls.

Do you deny that you intentionally misled everyone with your bar graph?

I could be wrong. You might not understand what you did. In that case, I apologize.

So which is it? Did you intentionally mislead people or don't you understand your own thread's subject matter?

 

[Foxfyre]

We are loosing the war on poverty, too many people have died from this war.

It is time to cut our losses and move and bring this war to end.

Well that is if you are truly anti-war.

Welcome to the discussion Kosh, but your comment could indeed be characterized as a broad generalization. Could you be a bit more specific in explaining what you mean by 'ending the war'?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Poverty programs don't create dependency. Poverty programs fill a gap between the population's need for good paying jobs and and the number of good paying jobs that are actually being generated by the economy.

Income is what a person depends on.

Such statements are silly.

It does both and it does a whole lot of other things too.

That is what is missing in all this. This isn't an Y=f(x) type of situation.

We can hardly define Y (we can't) and it's really f(x1, x2, x3.......x100,000).

These things are very complex.

I try to get to the complex parts but nobody wants to talk about them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre wants the poor's needs to be shifted to charity from the government because he thinks that will lower his taxes. Everything else he says is just rationalization.

In all due respect I do not tell you what you want or what you think. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

You would be competent in the discussion if you referred to my expressed statement that I do not see the federal government as the proper or most effective or most efficient entity to address issues of poverty. I did not nor have I ever said there is no role for the state or local governments to address poverty. So you are dishonest with your statement as you expressed it. Would you care to revise and extend?

You just destroyed the core of your own argument. You claim that poverty programs do more harm than good, make people dependent, haven't won the war on poverty,

but then you say that it's okay if what the federal government does was done by the state or local government.

So which is it? Why would the state or local governments doing more harm than good be any different than the federal government doing it?

No. I do believe that the federal war on poverty has done more harm than good and has wasted vaste resources with any postives to show for all that spending accompanied by even larger negatives. But I did not say that what the federal government did would be okay if the state or local government had done it. I have defended a role for the state and local government in addressing poverty without yet specifying what that role should be. There is a huge difference between those two things.

 

[Listening]

Poverty programs don't create dependency. Poverty programs fill a gap between the population's need for good paying jobs and and the number of good paying jobs that are actually being generated by the economy.

Income is what a person depends on.

Such statements are silly.

It does both and it does a whole lot of other things too.

That is what is missing in all this. This isn't an Y=f(x) type of situation.

We can hardly define Y (we can't) and it's really f(x1, x2, x3.......x100,000).

These things are very complex.

I try to get to the complex parts but nobody wants to talk about them.

We'll talk more later...I'm on the road for a great weekend.

 

[Listening]

We have had a reasonably civil and civilized discussion up to this point. I will respectfully request that those who do not appreciate that to find another thread to participate in. I will respectfully ask those who do appreciate that to ignore those who don't. That should allow us to keep the discussion productive and interesting to all. Let's especially ignore those who are so pathetically dysfunctional in our reading skills as I am being described in the most uncouth terms for posting a graph I didn't post.

I'm outa here for a good weekend.

Talk to you later.

 

[Foxfyre]

We have had a reasonably civil and civilized discussion up to this point. I will respectfully request that those who do not appreciate that to find another thread to participate in. I will respectfully ask those who do appreciate that to ignore those who don't. That should allow us to keep the discussion productive and interesting to all.

Stop posting rigged graphes and polls.

Do you deny that you intentionally misled everyone with your bar graph?

I could be wrong. You might not understand what you did. In that case, I apologize.

So which is it? Did you intentionally mislead people or don't you understand your own thread's subject matter?

Perhaps you could start by showing me the 'rigged graph or poll' that I posted? I don't recall posting either.

 

[Bfgrn]

You right wing social Darwinists would give the elderly a CUP, and let them get up every morning, head out to grovel at your haughty narcissistic feet.

We understand that those of you on the left really don't care about the destruction of the family. Hence, it is easy for you to see that family won't take care of someone who is elderly. Because there is no family.

Instead, you'll give them a room and let them die alone. I recently visited a woman in a rest home who, in her words, "had no one....no one", even though she did have family in the area.

I can fully understand why you'd worry about winding up on the street.

Not everyone has a family. And BTW, do you have children?

 

[Foxfyre]

You right wing social Darwinists would give the elderly a CUP, and let them get up every morning, head out to grovel at your haughty narcissistic feet.

We understand that those of you on the left really don't care about the destruction of the family. Hence, it is easy for you to see that family won't take care of someone who is elderly. Because there is no family.

Instead, you'll give them a room and let them die alone. I recently visited a woman in a rest home who, in her words, "had no one....no one", even though she did have family in the area.

I can fully understand why you'd worry about winding up on the street.

Not everyone has a family. And BTW, do you have children?

So for the very few people who have no family, do you think it is necessary to design and fund an enormous and never ending federal program to address that? On what constitutional basis do you defend such a program?

Why should there not be a social emphasis on encouraging people to prepare themselves to support themselves and get married before they have children? Would that not be more beneficial to everybody than to design massive federal government programs to support poor single mothers and their kids with the unintended negative consequence of encouraging much more of the same? Is there no room in the discussion to weigh these two things against each other and decide which is the more profitable and compassionate for all?

And have a good weekend Listening.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In all due respect I do not tell you what you want or what you think. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

You would be competent in the discussion if you referred to my expressed statement that I do not see the federal government as the proper or most effective or most efficient entity to address issues of poverty. I did not nor have I ever said there is no role for the state or local governments to address poverty. So you are dishonest with your statement as you expressed it. Would you care to revise and extend?

You just destroyed the core of your own argument. You claim that poverty programs do more harm than good, make people dependent, haven't won the war on poverty,

but then you say that it's okay if what the federal government does was done by the state or local government.

So which is it? Why would the state or local governments doing more harm than good be any different than the federal government doing it?

No. I do believe that the federal war on poverty has done more harm than good and has wasted vaste resources with any postives to show for all that spending accompanied by even larger negatives. But I did not say that what the federal government did would be okay if the state or local government had done it. I have defended a role for the state and local government in addressing poverty without yet specifying what that role should be. There is a huge difference between those two things.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us how, when, and why things will get better for the poor if we eliminated Medicaid.

 

[Foxfyre]

40 million poor in 1959 and 37 million poor in 2005. The war on poverty failed according to you and your unindexed chart.

Population in 1959- 177 million, in 2005 296 million.
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/...?dsrcid=225439

It worked very well.

And you answered my question. You don't know what you're doing. You have my sincere apology.

What indexed chart? Please point to the specific post. All I posted was a link direct to the census bureau. No chart. And if you can't do that you owe me a HUGE apology.

 

[Foxfyre]

You just destroyed the core of your own argument. You claim that poverty programs do more harm than good, make people dependent, haven't won the war on poverty,

but then you say that it's okay if what the federal government does was done by the state or local government.

So which is it? Why would the state or local governments doing more harm than good be any different than the federal government doing it?

No. I do believe that the federal war on poverty has done more harm than good and has wasted vaste resources with any postives to show for all that spending accompanied by even larger negatives. But I did not say that what the federal government did would be okay if the state or local government had done it. I have defended a role for the state and local government in addressing poverty without yet specifying what that role should be. There is a huge difference between those two things.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us how, when, and why things will get better for the poor if we eliminated Medicaid.

I haven't said, I don't believe, that we should eliminate Medicaid. I HAVE said I don't think the federal government should fund or administer a program like that. I HAVE said that the unintended negative consequences of federal meddling in healthcare have outweighed any positives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We understand that those of you on the left really don't care about the destruction of the family. Hence, it is easy for you to see that family won't take care of someone who is elderly. Because there is no family.

Instead, you'll give them a room and let them die alone. I recently visited a woman in a rest home who, in her words, "had no one....no one", even though she did have family in the area.

I can fully understand why you'd worry about winding up on the street.

Not everyone has a family. And BTW, do you have children?

So for the very few people who have no family, do you think it is necessary to design and fund an enormous and never ending federal program to address that? On what constitutional basis do you defend such a program?

Why should there not be a social emphasis on encouraging people to prepare themselves to support themselves and get married before they have children? Would that not be more beneficial to everybody than to design massive federal government programs to support poor single mothers and their kids with the unintended negative consequence of encouraging much more of the same? Is there no room in the discussion to weigh these two things against each other and decide which is the more profitable and compassionate for all?

And have a good weekend Listening.

So if Medicaid is unconstitutional, the program should end today. So again, how, when, and why will life get better for the poor who were on Medicaid,

once your dream came true and it was declared unconstitutional?

 

[Foxfyre]

Not everyone has a family. And BTW, do you have children?

So for the very few people who have no family, do you think it is necessary to design and fund an enormous and never ending federal program to address that? On what constitutional basis do you defend such a program?

Why should there not be a social emphasis on encouraging people to prepare themselves to support themselves and get married before they have children? Would that not be more beneficial to everybody than to design massive federal government programs to support poor single mothers and their kids with the unintended negative consequence of encouraging much more of the same? Is there no room in the discussion to weigh these two things against each other and decide which is the more profitable and compassionate for all?

And have a good weekend Listening.

So if Medicaid is unconstitutional, the program should end today. So again, how, when, and why will life get better for the poor who were on Medicaid,

once your dream came true and it was declared unconstitutional?

I would see the states, local communities, and local charities addressing the problem as they once did before there was Medicaid. Maybe if I type more slowly, you will understand the concept of this thread. The concept is whether those programs that we use to address the problem of the poor who are with us are actually helping more than they are hurting. Are producing more positives than negatives. And once we decide what we as a society should do, what is the best way to accomplish it?

My personal belief is that the federal government was never ever designed for or intended to order or administer such programs and does us all a disservice when it attempts to do so. My personal belief is that the federal government is doing much more than the Constitution ever intended that it do and the net effect of that is not commendable.

That is NOT saying that there should be no provision for society to help the poor.

 

[RightDown]

I don't see my other posts.

Come on Foxfyre, why did you post a graph that does not account for population growth? I have a pretty good idea.

The bar graph indicates that the number of impoverished people hasn't changed since prior to the governmental war on poverty until today.

That is false. 40 million poor in a country of 177 million is one thing (1959). 37 million poor in a country of 295 million is quite another (2005).

Can you explain this little 'whoopsie?'

Please explain your own bar graph.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see my other posts.

Come on Foxfyre, why did you post a graph that does not account for population growth? I have a pretty good idea.

The bar graph indicates that the number of impoverished people hasn't changed since prior to the governmental war on poverty until today.

That is false. 40 million poor in a country of 177 million is one thing (1959). 37 million poor in a country of 295 million is quite another (2005).

Can you explain this little 'whoopsie?'

Please explain your own bar graph.

Again please point to the bar graph you are objecting to. I did not post one to the best of my knowledge except for the illustration in the OP that was prefaced with a disclaimer that I was claiming no accuracy for it. You know, that same OP that others have consistently mischaracterized? And I'm pretty sure none of my posts have been removed. And after the uncivil manner in which you objected to something I didn't post, I am giving you every chance to redeem yourself here. Please take the opportunity.

 

[RightDown]

I don't see my other posts.

Come on Foxfyre, why did you post a graph that does not account for population growth? I have a pretty good idea.

The bar graph indicates that the number of impoverished people hasn't changed since prior to the governmental war on poverty until today.

That is false. 40 million poor in a country of 177 million is one thing (1959). 37 million poor in a country of 295 million is quite another (2005).

Can you explain this little 'whoopsie?'

Please explain your own bar graph.

Again please point to the bar graph you are objecting to. I did not post one to the best of my knowledge. And I'm pretty sure none of my posts have been removed. And after the uncivil manner in which you objected to something I didn't post, I am giving you every chance to redeem yourself here. Please take the opportunity.

You started the thread with the graph below and you don't recall posting any graph. Right.

With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart:

President Johnson announced his landmark "War on Poverty" at the State of the Union Address in January, 1964.

President Obama will probably mention something akin to poverty at his State of the Union Address 47 years later in January, 2011.

So what do the numbers tell you?

Government is necessary to deal with poverty?

Government does a good job in addressing poverty?

Government makes little or no difference in reducing poverty and could have saved a shipload of the people's money--make that mega trillions--if it had not initiated a 'war on poverty'?

Government actually contributes to poverty?

Or something in between?

Or none of the above?

In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.



Does any of that ring a bell? Here's a link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/151893-civics-lesson-101-the-war-on-poverty.html

You entitled it as a civics lesson, so pray tell, do teach us.

Where's the lesson on using poverty numbers that actually reflect population growth?

You go to great pains to point out: In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.

And what's with this: With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart

You frame the discussion with bogus information and expect honest forthright answers.

Why bother at all if your numbers are inaccurate? Why point out what the graph doesn't include, as you did above, if this exercise is just more rightwing propaganda that the poor should be marginalized and that governement is bad...badd I says.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see my other posts.

Come on Foxfyre, why did you post a graph that does not account for population growth? I have a pretty good idea.

The bar graph indicates that the number of impoverished people hasn't changed since prior to the governmental war on poverty until today.

That is false. 40 million poor in a country of 177 million is one thing (1959). 37 million poor in a country of 295 million is quite another (2005).

Can you explain this little 'whoopsie?'

Please explain your own bar graph.

Again please point to the bar graph you are objecting to. I did not post one to the best of my knowledge. And I'm pretty sure none of my posts have been removed. And after the uncivil manner in which you objected to something I didn't post, I am giving you every chance to redeem yourself here. Please take the opportunity.

You started the thread with the graph below and you don't recall posting any graph. Right.

With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart:

President Johnson announced his landmark "War on Poverty" at the State of the Union Address in January, 1964.

President Obama will probably mention something akin to poverty at his State of the Union Address 47 years later in January, 2011.

So what do the numbers tell you?

Government is necessary to deal with poverty?

Government does a good job in addressing poverty?

Government makes little or no difference in reducing poverty and could have saved a shipload of the people's money--make that mega trillions--if it had not initiated a 'war on poverty'?

Government actually contributes to poverty?

Or something in between?

Or none of the above?

In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.



Does any of that ring a bell? Here's a link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/151893-civics-lesson-101-the-war-on-poverty.html

You entitled it as a civics lesson, so pray tell, do teach us.

Where's the lesson on using poverty numbers that actually reflect population growth?

You go to great pains to point out: In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.

And what's with this: With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart

You frame the discussion with bogus information and expect honest forthright answers.

Why bother at all if your numbers are inaccurate? Why point out what the graph doesn't include, as you did above, if this exercise is just more rightwing propaganda that the poor should be marginalized and that governement is bad...badd I says.

Everything in this post has been discussed and explained throughout the thread. The chart itself shows the actual number of those in poverty and also shows the declining percentage based on population. So if you actually passed a gradeschool math class, you would see that the population factor is clearly addressed. I have provided various other sources that back up the numbers in the chart and have linked to those sources.

In no place in the OP did I make a judgment or definitive statement about the conclusion I expected anybody to draw. I asked discussion questions as an invitation for the civil and smart people to take on this particular issue and provided what qualifications I thought necessary in an effort to not be leading or misleading.

I am still awaiting your posting where I have been dishonest in any way or deserve the crude and juvenile language you have used to characterize me. If you are not man enough to post that evidence and/or apologize for your unethical postings, I will wish you a good day and will not respond to you further.

 

[RightDown]

Again please point to the bar graph you are objecting to. I did not post one to the best of my knowledge. And I'm pretty sure none of my posts have been removed. And after the uncivil manner in which you objected to something I didn't post, I am giving you every chance to redeem yourself here. Please take the opportunity.

You started the thread with the graph below and you don't recall posting any graph. Right.

With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart:

President Johnson announced his landmark "War on Poverty" at the State of the Union Address in January, 1964.

President Obama will probably mention something akin to poverty at his State of the Union Address 47 years later in January, 2011.

So what do the numbers tell you?

Government is necessary to deal with poverty?

Government does a good job in addressing poverty?

Government makes little or no difference in reducing poverty and could have saved a shipload of the people's money--make that mega trillions--if it had not initiated a 'war on poverty'?

Government actually contributes to poverty?

Or something in between?

Or none of the above?

In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.



Does any of that ring a bell? Here's a link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/151893-civics-lesson-101-the-war-on-poverty.html

You entitled it as a civics lesson, so pray tell, do teach us.

Where's the lesson on using poverty numbers that actually reflect population growth?

You go to great pains to point out: In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.

And what's with this: With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart

You frame the discussion with bogus information and expect honest forthright answers.

Why bother at all if your numbers are inaccurate? Why point out what the graph doesn't include, as you did above, if this exercise is just more rightwing propaganda that the poor should be marginalized and that governement is bad...badd I says.

Everything in this post has been discussed and explained throughout the thread. The chart itself shows the actual number of those in poverty and also shows the declining percentage based on population. So if you actually passed a gradeschool math class, you would see that the population factor is clearly addressed. I have provided various other sources that back up the numbers in the chart and have linked to those sources.

In no place in the OP did I make a statement about anything. I asked discussion questions as an invitation for the civil and smart people to take on this particular issue.

I am still awaiting your posting where I have been dishonest in any way or deserve the crude and juvenile language you have used to characterize me. If you are not man enough to post that evidence and/or apologize for your unethical postings, I will wish you a good day and will not respond to you further.

Well my goodness, shut my mouth Mr. Man ..all of the topics have been discussed throughout the thread. Nice try fella.

The chart uses actual numbers? But you wrote: "With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart" Should I link you to your own words? Either the numbers are accurate or they are not. Why the prevarication?

Hold that thought. Here's why your numbers are bogus (for the millionth time):

40 million poor in a country of 177 million is one thing (1959). 37 million poor in a country of 295 million is quite another (2005). Do you see how there's been tremendous progress in battling poverty since the implementation of the War on Poverty by the federal government? In a scant few years, the poverty rate was cut in half. The bottom bar on the graph contradicts the top bar.

But you really don't see that in your graph do you?

Can you explain this little 'whoopsie?'

And I'm as much a man as you are fella. I just don't use cooked numbers and graphes to make my points. You do.