Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, let's try this on a smaller scale.

Let's say we eliminate Medicaid altogether, poof, gone.

How does that help eliminate poverty in America?

Alright, so no one can in any way show how eliminating Medicaid would help in any way to eliminate poverty in America,

so we can fairly conclude that it wouldn't, so let's go the next step.

Does the existence of Medicaid help towards eliminating poverty in America? Or does it help to alleviate poverty in America?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, let's try this on a smaller scale.

Let's say we eliminate Medicaid altogether, poof, gone.

How does that help eliminate poverty in America?

Alright, so no one can in any way show how eliminating Medicaid would help in any way to eliminate poverty in America,

so we can fairly conclude that it wouldn't, so let's go the next step.

Does the existence of Medicaid help towards eliminating poverty in America? Or does it help to alleviate poverty in America?

In my opinion, Medicaid doesn't do a thing to eliminate poverty in America. However, reducing dependence on Medicaid would be a good indicator that poverty in America was being eliminated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong again. Single mothers have seen their poverty rate cut in half by these programs. As previously noted, the majority of cash benefit recipients are out in 2-3 yrs, long enough to get an associates and potty train their children so they can be accepted in pre-schools. The generational recipients almost overwhelmingly have disability issues involved.

Uh-huh....Create programs that encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy -and make no mistake about it, the rate of illegitimacy, especially amongst blacks, has skyrocketed since 1965- then claim that your programs help those whom you've encourage to exhibit the behavior.

Classic socialist do-gooder scam...Break a man's leg, then hand him a crutch and condescendingly preach to him how lucky you he is to have your "help".

In the meantime, the bureaucrats clean up.

It's bewildering isn't it?

Again referring to the graph in the OP, the poverty rate was plummeting BEFORE the so-called 'War on Poverty' and from that point on has been up and down but fairly level on average after expenditures exceeding $10 trillion on poverty programs since LBJ pushed Congress to allocate $1 billion for his anti-poverty initiative 47 years ago.

.

You have to take into account that our competitive position in the world began to weaken around the 70's.

What nobody likes to talk about is the possibility that the anti-poverty programs may have held the line against what would have been a growing poverty problem.

 

[boedicca]

Why do you love to rain on my parade.

You make war sound like a Bad Thing.

C'mon Sammy. Get it right. The correct phrase is:

Bad Thang!

You GO GURL!


***I love it when you've braided your hair in corn rows***

I dun 'em up with green and yellow beads today.

 

[Foxfyre]

Uh-huh....Create programs that encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy -and make no mistake about it, the rate of illegitimacy, especially amongst blacks, has skyrocketed since 1965- then claim that your programs help those whom you've encourage to exhibit the behavior.

Classic socialist do-gooder scam...Break a man's leg, then hand him a crutch and condescendingly preach to him how lucky you he is to have your "help".

In the meantime, the bureaucrats clean up.

It's bewildering isn't it?

Again referring to the graph in the OP, the poverty rate was plummeting BEFORE the so-called 'War on Poverty' and from that point on has been up and down but fairly level on average after expenditures exceeding $10 trillion on poverty programs since LBJ pushed Congress to allocate $1 billion for his anti-poverty initiative 47 years ago.

.

You have to take into account that our competitive position in the world began to weaken around the 70's.

What nobody likes to talk about is the possibility that the anti-poverty programs may have held the line against what would have been a growing poverty problem.

Or the possibility is that anti-poverty and other programs producing unintended negative consequences have contributed to the weakening of our competitiveness.

 

[boedicca]

It's bewildering isn't it?

Again referring to the graph in the OP, the poverty rate was plummeting BEFORE the so-called 'War on Poverty' and from that point on has been up and down but fairly level on average after expenditures exceeding $10 trillion on poverty programs since LBJ pushed Congress to allocate $1 billion for his anti-poverty initiative 47 years ago.

.

You have to take into account that our competitive position in the world began to weaken around the 70's.

What nobody likes to talk about is the possibility that the anti-poverty programs may have held the line against what would have been a growing poverty problem.

Or the possibility is that anti-poverty and other programs producing unintended negative consequences have contributed to the weakening of our competitiveness.

This is the correct motorcycle.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's bewildering isn't it?

Again referring to the graph in the OP, the poverty rate was plummeting BEFORE the so-called 'War on Poverty' and from that point on has been up and down but fairly level on average after expenditures exceeding $10 trillion on poverty programs since LBJ pushed Congress to allocate $1 billion for his anti-poverty initiative 47 years ago.

.

You have to take into account that our competitive position in the world began to weaken around the 70's.

What nobody likes to talk about is the possibility that the anti-poverty programs may have held the line against what would have been a growing poverty problem.

Or the possibility is that anti-poverty and other programs producing unintended negative consequences have contributed to the weakening of our competitiveness.

What's to support that case? Specifically.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have to take into account that our competitive position in the world began to weaken around the 70's.

What nobody likes to talk about is the possibility that the anti-poverty programs may have held the line against what would have been a growing poverty problem.

Or the possibility is that anti-poverty and other programs producing unintended negative consequences have contributed to the weakening of our competitiveness.

This is the correct motorcycle.

Then offer at least an iota of evidence to support it.

 

[boedicca]

Or the possibility is that anti-poverty and other programs producing unintended negative consequences have contributed to the weakening of our competitiveness.

This is the correct motorcycle.

Then offer at least an iota of evidence to support it.

The decline of nuclear black families in Oakland CA - and the subsequent destruction of former middle class neighborhoods into zones of gang warfare.

 

[Foxfyre]

You have to take into account that our competitive position in the world began to weaken around the 70's.

What nobody likes to talk about is the possibility that the anti-poverty programs may have held the line against what would have been a growing poverty problem.

Or the possibility is that anti-poverty and other programs producing unintended negative consequences have contributed to the weakening of our competitiveness.

What's to support that case? Specifically.

The fact that our U.S. auto makers and similar industries have been losing market share for decades. The fact that so many of our labor intensive manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. The fact that there are so many products no longer produced in the USA at all. Why? Because minimum wage laws, union entanglements, government regulation, oppressive environmental constraints, and a growing population who thinks the world owes them a living rather than people should expect to work for what they get.

And you can trace all of that to variations of the War on Poverty.

 

[Samson]

You have to take into account that our competitive position in the world began to weaken around the 70's.

What nobody likes to talk about is the possibility that the anti-poverty programs may have held the line against what would have been a growing poverty problem.

Or the possibility is that anti-poverty and other programs producing unintended negative consequences have contributed to the weakening of our competitiveness.

What's to support that case? Specifically.

Agreed.

And Foxfyre, when you're done, I want evidence that water is wet.

 

[boedicca]

If water is always wet, 'splain DRY ICE?!?!?!?!

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL. Okay. When I get to it Samson. When I get to it.

 

[shintao]

I think it is pretty obvious the right would like to pay no taxes and have no programs or progress. How close to the nonexistence of government do they dare take America? I would like to end the argument and see where they take us in destroying our nation. Anyone willing to that?

 

[shintao]

Or the possibility is that anti-poverty and other programs producing unintended negative consequences have contributed to the weakening of our competitiveness.

What's to support that case? Specifically.

The fact that our U.S. auto makers and similar industries have been losing market share for decades. The fact that so many of our labor intensive manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. The fact that there are so many products no longer produced in the USA at all. Why? Because minimum wage laws, union entanglements, government regulation, oppressive environmental constraints, and a growing population who thinks the world owes them a living rather than people should expect to work for what they get.

And you can trace all of that to variations of the War on Poverty.

But wouldn't working for the company store be the same as poverty?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Or the possibility is that anti-poverty and other programs producing unintended negative consequences have contributed to the weakening of our competitiveness.

What's to support that case? Specifically.

The fact that our U.S. auto makers and similar industries have been losing market share for decades. The fact that so many of our labor intensive manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. The fact that there are so many products no longer produced in the USA at all. Why? Because minimum wage laws, union entanglements, government regulation, oppressive environmental constraints, and a growing population who thinks the world owes them a living rather than people should expect to work for what they get.

And you can trace all of that to variations of the War on Poverty.

No, you can't. Don't be ridiculous. The topic was poverty, not the environment for chrissakes.

I want to know how getting rid of Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all other needs based programs will make America better. Specifically.

 

[boedicca]

For most people (the decent ones), having a job is far better than living on government hand-outs. That's how it would be better.

Just sayin'.

 

[Zander]

As a group - Liberals have no business telling anyone what to do when it comes to poverty. They give substantially less to charity than conservatives. They are thrilled to spend "other peoples" money - just not their own.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think it is pretty obvious the right would like to pay no taxes and have no programs or progress. How close to the nonexistence of government do they dare take America? I would like to end the argument and see where they take us in destroying our nation. Anyone willing to that?

They want the poor to look like the poor in places like Mexico, or India, or Africa. They want the poor to LOOK poor; government assistance destroys that look.

 

[Foxfyre]

What's to support that case? Specifically.

The fact that our U.S. auto makers and similar industries have been losing market share for decades. The fact that so many of our labor intensive manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. The fact that there are so many products no longer produced in the USA at all. Why? Because minimum wage laws, union entanglements, government regulation, oppressive environmental constraints, and a growing population who thinks the world owes them a living rather than people should expect to work for what they get.

And you can trace all of that to variations of the War on Poverty.

No, you can't. Don't be ridiculous. The topic was poverty, not the environment for chrissakes.

I want to know how getting rid of Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all other needs based programs will make America better. Specifically.

Yes the topic was poverty and if you think environmental regulations have played no part in that, you really do need to retake Economics 100, let alone 101.

The topic is not what will make America better though that would make an interesting thread.

The topic is whether the War on Poverty has had a significant effect on poverty one way or the other. I think it can be safely established, as described, that it has affected our competitiveness which of course will hit the least employable, i.e. the poor, the hardest.

Can we at least agree that Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, and other 'needs based' programs make people much more comfortable in poverty.

Can we at least agree that at least some are so comfortable in poverty that they really have little or no incentive to get out.

Can we at least agree that the single mother who qualifies for a lot of federal and state assistance has little incentive to marry the father? That the father has little incentive to stick around?

And finally can we agree that politicians and bureacrats whose jobs depend on votes from the poor have little incentive to do what wil actually help people get out of poverty?