How Liberal Policies Keep People in Poverty

[NYcarbineer]

Jesus said that " the poor will always be with you " That is because the dumb, lazy, criminal minded, nuts, and their enablers will always be among us. However, when you reward irresponsibility you get more of it, and that is precisely what liberal policies do at the expense of the tax payer. If you want less of something - punish it.

Okay. So take Medicaid and food stamps away from the poor.

How soon before, en masse, they start getting less poor?

Okay. Continue subsidizing them

How soon before, en masse, they start getting more rich?

That is irrelevant to this thread.

The claim, as stated in the thread title, is that liberal policies KEEP people in poverty. Therefore the claim is that ending liberal policies would stop keeping people in poverty.

Medicaid and food stamps are liberal policies. Therefore the claim is that Medicaid and food stamps keep people in poverty.

Therefore the claim is that ending Medicaid and food stamps would stop keeping people in poverty.

If you want to defend the OP's claim, since obviously the OP won't, go ahead.

Tell us how and when poor people starting coming out of poverty once Medicaid and food stamps are ended.

Or...concede that the OP's claim is nonsense.

 

[Duped]

Jesus said that " the poor will always be with you " That is because the dumb, lazy, criminal minded, nuts, and their enablers will always be among us. However, when you reward irresponsibility you get more of it, and that is precisely what liberal policies do at the expense of the tax payer. If you want less of something - punish it.

Okay. So take Medicaid and food stamps away from the poor.

How soon before, en masse, they start getting less poor?

As I indicated: some people will remain poor as they have no ambition. If you pay someone to sit on their ass, they are not going to get off of it.

As soon as they get jobs - maybe two jobs each. Why should others pay for their food, and health when they have to pay for their own? This is more than simple mechanics, this is a mindset, generational, habitual type of thing. No one should grow up looking for the government ( tax payers ) to give them. Stop the programs, feel the pain, make better choices - less pain for less people in the end. Do you think 47, million people on food stamps is a good thing - how about 100, million - better?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Okay. So take Medicaid and food stamps away from the poor.

How soon before, en masse, they start getting less poor?

Okay. Continue subsidizing them

How soon before, en masse, they start getting more rich?

That is irrelevant to this thread.

The claim, as stated in the thread title, is that liberal policies KEEP people in poverty. Therefore the claim is that ending liberal policies would stop keeping people in poverty.

Medicaid and food stamps are liberal policies. Therefore the claim is that Medicaid and food stamps keep people in poverty.

Therefore the claim is that ending Medicaid and food stamps would stop keeping people in poverty.

If you want to defend the OP's claim, since obviously the OP won't, go ahead.

Tell us how and when poor people starting coming out of poverty once Medicaid and food stamps are ended.

Or...concede that the OP's claim is nonsense.

Uh no. This thread is about liberal policies inducing poverty is it not? Shouldn't we be discussing ways of getting people out of it, not keeping them in it? Throughout history, liberals have proposed helping the poor from becoming poorer, not putting them back to work. Social Security is a contract, and thus irrelevant. They have proposed things which I dub "perpetual subsidies" in which the person stays poor, but is paid enough to keep from getting poorer. There is no incentive for them to look for work. None. Why look for work when you have the government providing for your every need?

It's easy for people to see, why can't you see it? Medicaid was part of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and was passed in 1965. Food Stamps originated with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, and resulted in the Food Stamp Act of 1964, once again under Lyndon Johnson; this was replaced by provisions from the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, which was passed under another Democrat, Jimmy Carter.

So yeah, Liberal policies do keep people in poverty. You cannot claim these acts are responsible for creating jobs, they strip people of the motivation to look for them

 

[Moonglow]

yep... the goal of the left elites is to destroy the middle class.....and create a dependent underclass...

it's why liberals focus on 'minimum wages' for the bottom barrel jobs instead of robust business development that would create good jobs and more more middle class workers....

it's why liberals focus on 'gay marriage' and sexual 'liberation' instead of real marriages and family values that would prevent abortions and all those poor dependent mothers living off government handouts....

So there were no abortions before Roe vs Wade?

after RvW the number of abortions soared drastically.....the sheer enormity of the number of abortions makes that obvious and also proves that women are not using abortion as just a 'last choice'.....since 1973 there have been 55 million abortions....

Hoe many peoples have died at the hands of US soldiers or citizenry,intervening in nations we had no business waging war upon, that includes the genocidal war on the Native Americans?

 

[Moonglow]

Okay. Continue subsidizing them

How soon before, en masse, they start getting more rich?

That is irrelevant to this thread.

The claim, as stated in the thread title, is that liberal policies KEEP people in poverty. Therefore the claim is that ending liberal policies would stop keeping people in poverty.

Medicaid and food stamps are liberal policies. Therefore the claim is that Medicaid and food stamps keep people in poverty.

Therefore the claim is that ending Medicaid and food stamps would stop keeping people in poverty.

If you want to defend the OP's claim, since obviously the OP won't, go ahead.

Tell us how and when poor people starting coming out of poverty once Medicaid and food stamps are ended.

Or...concede that the OP's claim is nonsense.

Uh no. This thread is about liberal policies inducing poverty is it not? Shouldn't we be discussing ways of getting people out of it, not keeping them in it? Throughout history, liberals have proposed helping the poor from becoming poorer, not putting them back to work. Social Security is a contract, and thus irrelevant. They have proposed things which I dub "perpetual subsidies" in which the person stays poor, but is paid enough to keep from getting poorer. There is no incentive for them to look for work. None. Why look for work when you have the government providing for your every need?

It's easy for people to see, why can't you see it? Medicaid was part of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and was passed in 1965. Food Stamps originated with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, and resulted in the Food Stamp Act of 1964, once again under Lyndon Johnson; this was replaced by provisions from the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, which was passed under another Democrat, Jimmy Carter.

So yeah, Liberal policies do keep people in poverty. You cannot claim these acts are responsible for creating jobs, they strip people of the motivation to look for them

People keep themselves in poverty. There is a way out but it takes work, determination and discipline.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jesus said that " the poor will always be with you " That is because the dumb, lazy, criminal minded, nuts, and their enablers will always be among us. However, when you reward irresponsibility you get more of it, and that is precisely what liberal policies do at the expense of the tax payer. If you want less of something - punish it.

Okay. So take Medicaid and food stamps away from the poor.

How soon before, en masse, they start getting less poor?

As I indicated: some people will remain poor as they have no ambition. If you pay someone to sit on their ass, they are not going to get off of it.

As soon as they get jobs - maybe two jobs each. Why should others pay for their food, and health when they have to pay for their own? This is more than simple mechanics, this is a mindset, generational, habitual type of thing. No one should grow up looking for the government ( tax payers ) to give them. Stop the programs, feel the pain, make better choices - less pain for less people in the end. Do you think 47, million people on food stamps is a good thing - how about 100, million - better?

The accusation is that the policies keep people poor. The only proof that could be true would be if ending the policies would substantively, measurably, reduce poverty.

No one making the above accusation has been able to make any argument to support the claim that ending the policies would result in fewer poor people.

 

[itfitzme]

I know this will make the far left have a collective seizure, but it's true that liberal policies that encourage the breakup of families and a nanny state are the main reasons that people do not pull themselves up. The left only sees two extremes, the super wealthy and the dirt poor. The reason they never bring up the middle class is because it's in the way of their plans. They are systematically destroying middle class and they'd rather people forgot it even exists. All we hear is taking more from the rich and giving to the poor with no expectations of people involved in their own progress. Of course, it's middle class they take from, but the media isn't about to look too hard at what liberal policies actually achieve. They only report on the intentions, not the disastrous results.

Encouraging dependency also encourages single parenthood and a lack a concern about community. The entitlement mentality keeps people focused on what government can do for them, not what they can do for themselves, their families or their communities. That responsibility was turned over to government long ago. Over 50 years of welfare and government programs and the result is more people lined up for help and fewer climbing out of poverty. It's more than a failed system. It's by design and that makes it far worse.

Obama Disregards What Hispanics and All Americans Need to Achieve American Dream

Wow, you have just proven yourself to be an extremist. Funny how extremists seem to always insist that their opposition is extreme.

BTW, the Heritage Foundation couldn't produce an objective and correct study if their life depended on it.

According to the Heritage foundation, by 2010 the Bush tax cuts would have resulted in the federal debt being paid off.

Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.4
■ The net tax revenue reduction, after accounting for the larger tax base that would result from higher employment and faster economic growth under the Bush plan, is $1.1 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011, 33.4 percent less than conventional static estimates.
■ The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011, revenue that could be used to reform the Social Security and Medicare systems and reduce the payroll tax.5

You should start by not relying on the Heritage foundation.




The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

 

[eagle1462010]

I agree with the OP.........................

Which side says Coal is bad................it's killing the planet.............and elects a POTUS who states openly that it will necessarily skyrocket............

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4]Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube[/ame]

Well he couldn't pass it through Congress, aka Cap and Trade, so he does it through the back door with the EPA..............Near where I live, the Kemper plant is a result.........1st plant in the U.S. to try new tech to burn coal clean.............Rates for those locals near the plant will go up 22%.............................So, Obamanation is doing what he promised...........Hurting everyone with the bill, and more is to come................That hurts the poor and the middle class...............

Obamacare...................Rates going up for the middle class who aren't getting subsidies...........Losing Insurance or have to pay out the ass for AFFORDABLE ???????Insurance. Hey dumb ass it was more affordable before you passed this chit................

30 hour work weeks to compensate for Obamacare............

Wow............that's a real champion of the little people.........screwing the populous while saying he's helping them...........

That's the libs and their mentality............poverty increasing......labor participation steadily going down...........After Trillions spent to cause a recovery...........and so on.............

The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.............and they are just paving away.

 

[itfitzme]

Okay. Continue subsidizing them

How soon before, en masse, they start getting more rich?

That is irrelevant to this thread.

The claim, as stated in the thread title, is that liberal policies KEEP people in poverty. Therefore the claim is that ending liberal policies would stop keeping people in poverty.

Medicaid and food stamps are liberal policies. Therefore the claim is that Medicaid and food stamps keep people in poverty.

Therefore the claim is that ending Medicaid and food stamps would stop keeping people in poverty.

If you want to defend the OP's claim, since obviously the OP won't, go ahead.

Tell us how and when poor people starting coming out of poverty once Medicaid and food stamps are ended.

Or...concede that the OP's claim is nonsense.

Uh no. This thread is about liberal policies inducing poverty is it not? Shouldn't we be discussing ways of getting people out of it, not keeping them in it? Throughout history, liberals have proposed helping the poor from becoming poorer, not putting them back to work. Social Security is a contract, and thus irrelevant. They have proposed things which I dub "perpetual subsidies" in which the person stays poor, but is paid enough to keep from getting poorer. There is no incentive for them to look for work. None. Why look for work when you have the government providing for your every need?

It's easy for people to see, why can't you see it? Medicaid was part of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and was passed in 1965. Food Stamps originated with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, and resulted in the Food Stamp Act of 1964, once again under Lyndon Johnson; this was replaced by provisions from the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, which was passed under another Democrat, Jimmy Carter.

So yeah, Liberal policies do keep people in poverty. You cannot claim these acts are responsible for creating jobs, they strip people of the motivation to look for them

"So yeah, Liberal policies do keep people in poverty. You cannot claim these acts are responsible for creating jobs, they strip people of the motivation to look for them"

And you base this on what?

Do you also believe that unemployment benifits cause people to not bother looking for work?

 

[eagle1462010]

Riddle me this.........................

Which would be a better environment for work...................

A. Welcome to our state. We are prepared to cut your taxes for x amount of jobs for a short time to create jobs for our people. We are happy to assist you and hope you choose to invest in our Great State.

or

B. We are going to tax your ass off.........You are a 1%er...........You have too much money and their is income inequality........Start producing jobs and giving us your money or else............By the way, you will be paying more for electricity here because we are saving the planet...........and you will comply by or regulations if you want to be in our state........A state that cares about the planet and the little people................

And then the libs wonder why businesses leave their state...............Clueless people they are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That is irrelevant to this thread.

The claim, as stated in the thread title, is that liberal policies KEEP people in poverty. Therefore the claim is that ending liberal policies would stop keeping people in poverty.

Medicaid and food stamps are liberal policies. Therefore the claim is that Medicaid and food stamps keep people in poverty.

Therefore the claim is that ending Medicaid and food stamps would stop keeping people in poverty.

If you want to defend the OP's claim, since obviously the OP won't, go ahead.

Tell us how and when poor people starting coming out of poverty once Medicaid and food stamps are ended.

Or...concede that the OP's claim is nonsense.

Uh no. This thread is about liberal policies inducing poverty is it not? Shouldn't we be discussing ways of getting people out of it, not keeping them in it? Throughout history, liberals have proposed helping the poor from becoming poorer, not putting them back to work. Social Security is a contract, and thus irrelevant. They have proposed things which I dub "perpetual subsidies" in which the person stays poor, but is paid enough to keep from getting poorer. There is no incentive for them to look for work. None. Why look for work when you have the government providing for your every need?

It's easy for people to see, why can't you see it? Medicaid was part of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and was passed in 1965. Food Stamps originated with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, and resulted in the Food Stamp Act of 1964, once again under Lyndon Johnson; this was replaced by provisions from the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, which was passed under another Democrat, Jimmy Carter.

So yeah, Liberal policies do keep people in poverty. You cannot claim these acts are responsible for creating jobs, they strip people of the motivation to look for them

"So yeah, Liberal policies do keep people in poverty. You cannot claim these acts are responsible for creating jobs, they strip people of the motivation to look for them"

And you base this on what?

Do you also believe that unemployment benefits cause people to not bother looking for work?

I base it on BLS statistics. People aren't going to work; they're either not looking for work, retiring, or being subsidized by an entitlement program. Yes I do believe that. The evidence is there for all to see.

Old proverb:

"Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Teach the man to build a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

 

[Moonglow]

Uh no. This thread is about liberal policies inducing poverty is it not? Shouldn't we be discussing ways of getting people out of it, not keeping them in it? Throughout history, liberals have proposed helping the poor from becoming poorer, not putting them back to work. Social Security is a contract, and thus irrelevant. They have proposed things which I dub "perpetual subsidies" in which the person stays poor, but is paid enough to keep from getting poorer. There is no incentive for them to look for work. None. Why look for work when you have the government providing for your every need?

It's easy for people to see, why can't you see it? Medicaid was part of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and was passed in 1965. Food Stamps originated with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, and resulted in the Food Stamp Act of 1964, once again under Lyndon Johnson; this was replaced by provisions from the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, which was passed under another Democrat, Jimmy Carter.

So yeah, Liberal policies do keep people in poverty. You cannot claim these acts are responsible for creating jobs, they strip people of the motivation to look for them

"So yeah, Liberal policies do keep people in poverty. You cannot claim these acts are responsible for creating jobs, they strip people of the motivation to look for them"

And you base this on what?

Do you also believe that unemployment benefits cause people to not bother looking for work?

I base it on BLS statistics. People aren't going to work; they're either not looking for work, retiring, or being subsidized by an entitlement program. Yes I do believe that. The evidence is there for all to see.

Old proverb:

"Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Teach the man to build a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Please tell me what companies are going to stop the human resources science of dening people a job based on lengthy unemployment, old age or from being self employed?

 

[itfitzme]

Uh no. This thread is about liberal policies inducing poverty is it not? Shouldn't we be discussing ways of getting people out of it, not keeping them in it? Throughout history, liberals have proposed helping the poor from becoming poorer, not putting them back to work. Social Security is a contract, and thus irrelevant. They have proposed things which I dub "perpetual subsidies" in which the person stays poor, but is paid enough to keep from getting poorer. There is no incentive for them to look for work. None. Why look for work when you have the government providing for your every need?

It's easy for people to see, why can't you see it? Medicaid was part of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and was passed in 1965. Food Stamps originated with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, and resulted in the Food Stamp Act of 1964, once again under Lyndon Johnson; this was replaced by provisions from the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, which was passed under another Democrat, Jimmy Carter.

So yeah, Liberal policies do keep people in poverty. You cannot claim these acts are responsible for creating jobs, they strip people of the motivation to look for them

"So yeah, Liberal policies do keep people in poverty. You cannot claim these acts are responsible for creating jobs, they strip people of the motivation to look for them"

And you base this on what?

Do you also believe that unemployment benefits cause people to not bother looking for work?

I base it on BLS statistics. People aren't going to work; they're either not looking for work, retiring, or being subsidized by an entitlement program. Yes I do believe that. The evidence is there for all to see.

Old proverb:

"Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Teach the man to build a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Well now, that is pure bs. No where does the BLS CPS have a count of;
"People that don't want a job because they are collecting unemployment or welfare."

Your "interpetation" of the survey stats is entirely your own imaginary fabrication.

 

[mudwhistle]

I know this will make the far left have a collective seizure, but it's true that liberal policies that encourage the breakup of families and a nanny state are the main reasons that people do not pull themselves up. The left only sees two extremes, the super wealthy and the dirt poor. The reason they never bring up the middle class is because it's in the way of their plans. They are systematically destroying middle class and they'd rather people forgot it even exists. All we hear is taking more from the rich and giving to the poor with no expectations of people involved in their own progress. Of course, it's middle class they take from, but the media isn't about to look too hard at what liberal policies actually achieve. They only report on the intentions, not the disastrous results.

Encouraging dependency also encourages single parenthood and a lack a concern about community. The entitlement mentality keeps people focused on what government can do for them, not what they can do for themselves, their families or their communities. That responsibility was turned over to government long ago. Over 50 years of welfare and government programs and the result is more people lined up for help and fewer climbing out of poverty. It's more than a failed system. It's by design and that makes it far worse.

Obama Disregards What Hispanics and All Americans Need to Achieve American Dream

In order for your claim to be true,

if all poverty programs were eliminated, then poor Americans would start coming out of poverty at a rate faster than they do currently.

Unless you can demonstrate a plausible scenario as to how when where and why that would happen,

your argument has a value of ZERO.

And so does your's.

The point isn't that we want entitlements eliminated, but that we want Democrats to stop creating an environment that produces more that need entitlements because of income stagnation, raising the minimum-wage thus destroying growth in the economy, by stifling alternative energy sources forcing the price of energy sky-high.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"So yeah, Liberal policies do keep people in poverty. You cannot claim these acts are responsible for creating jobs, they strip people of the motivation to look for them"

And you base this on what?

Do you also believe that unemployment benefits cause people to not bother looking for work?

I base it on BLS statistics. People aren't going to work; they're either not looking for work, retiring, or being subsidized by an entitlement program. Yes I do believe that. The evidence is there for all to see.

Old proverb:

"Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Teach the man to build a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Well now, that is pure bs. No where does the BLS CPS have a count of;
"People that don't want a job because they are collecting unemployment or welfare."

Your "interpetation" of the survey stats is entirely your own imaginary fabrication.

And you have no argument.

"That's BS!!!!"

Is not an argument.

 

[itfitzme]

"So yeah, Liberal policies do keep people in poverty. You cannot claim these acts are responsible for creating jobs, they strip people of the motivation to look for them"

And you base this on what?

Do you also believe that unemployment benefits cause people to not bother looking for work?

I base it on BLS statistics. People aren't going to work; they're either not looking for work, retiring, or being subsidized by an entitlement program. Yes I do believe that. The evidence is there for all to see.

Old proverb:

"Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Teach the man to build a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Please tell me what companies are going to stop the human resources science of dening people a job based on lengthy unemployment, old age or from being self employed?

I can only say, anechdotally and reasonably, that the major hurdle to obtaining employment is that of matching skills to the job. I can definitely say that I have observed this being an issue. I believe it is called structural unemployment. I can definately say that "being overqualified" is a big problem. Prospective employers not only want applicants with the specific training or experience but they also will not higher anyone with additional experience and training.

Statistically, I can say that the major factor in unemployment is that of not highering anyone in the 18-25 year age bracket. Correctly, very few people in the upper age brackets are leaving jobs and retiring. The data bears out that the past decade has seen a proportional increase in elderly workers amd a proportional decrease in younger workers.

I had an opportunity to download the BLS CPS database and do a presice analysis. So, my conclusions from the BLS data is absolutely correct.

Anechdotally, I can say that some older workers who lost jobs durimg the recession and could draw early OASDI did so after extended unemployment. Statistically, this is not the norm.

So, it appears that for a worker over about 50 who has modest to minimal qualifications, finding employment was difficult but no entirely impossible. Educated or highly qualified individuals did find that getting hired was almost impossible.

The data and my anechdotal experience then suggest your beliefs are true.

And, a real statistical analysis of BLS data along with actual experience lends no credance to the ideas put forth of any demotivation due to either unemployment benifits or other assistance.

In other words, the "gov't assistance causes people to not want to work" is complete bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

I know this will make the far left have a collective seizure, but it's true that liberal policies that encourage the breakup of families and a nanny state are the main reasons that people do not pull themselves up. The left only sees two extremes, the super wealthy and the dirt poor. The reason they never bring up the middle class is because it's in the way of their plans. They are systematically destroying middle class and they'd rather people forgot it even exists. All we hear is taking more from the rich and giving to the poor with no expectations of people involved in their own progress. Of course, it's middle class they take from, but the media isn't about to look too hard at what liberal policies actually achieve. They only report on the intentions, not the disastrous results.

Encouraging dependency also encourages single parenthood and a lack a concern about community. The entitlement mentality keeps people focused on what government can do for them, not what they can do for themselves, their families or their communities. That responsibility was turned over to government long ago. Over 50 years of welfare and government programs and the result is more people lined up for help and fewer climbing out of poverty. It's more than a failed system. It's by design and that makes it far worse.

Obama Disregards What Hispanics and All Americans Need to Achieve American Dream

So before the era of welfare or help, everyone in the US was not in poverty?
In the 19th century the US govt. gave you free land, is that not welfare or help?

No. The land didn't belong to the government in the first place. Land belongs to whomever occupies and uses it first.

 

[itfitzme]

I base it on BLS statistics. People aren't going to work; they're either not looking for work, retiring, or being subsidized by an entitlement program. Yes I do believe that. The evidence is there for all to see.

Old proverb:

"Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Teach the man to build a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Well now, that is pure bs. No where does the BLS CPS have a count of;
"People that don't want a job because they are collecting unemployment or welfare."

Your "interpetation" of the survey stats is entirely your own imaginary fabrication.

And you have no argument.

"That's BS!!!!"

Is not an argument.

Yeah, it is an argument because I've analyzed the BLS CPS data and know what the survey questions and categories are.

Yeah, it is unsubstantiated BULLSHIT because there is no CPS or CES categories for "don't want a job because I am collecting unemoyment or other assistance."

Apparently you cannot read because I already stated this. It is simply stupid bullshit.

Do you really need me to direct you to the BLS CPS and CES categories or are you at least not a complete retard?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There's a big difference between easy exist to education and welfare. Learn it. Making the country dumbing is a bad idea.

Easy exist? Making the country dumbing?

I guess we know all about your education.

 

[candycorn]

Okay. So take Medicaid and food stamps away from the poor.

How soon before, en masse, they start getting less poor?

As I indicated: some people will remain poor as they have no ambition. If you pay someone to sit on their ass, they are not going to get off of it.

As soon as they get jobs - maybe two jobs each. Why should others pay for their food, and health when they have to pay for their own? This is more than simple mechanics, this is a mindset, generational, habitual type of thing. No one should grow up looking for the government ( tax payers ) to give them. Stop the programs, feel the pain, make better choices - less pain for less people in the end. Do you think 47, million people on food stamps is a good thing - how about 100, million - better?

The accusation is that the policies keep people poor. The only proof that could be true would be if ending the policies would substantively, measurably, reduce poverty.

No one making the above accusation has been able to make any argument to support the claim that ending the policies would result in fewer poor people.

The argument is that if you cut off the spigot of support, the poor will react by having an epiphany that they need to get a job and start working. This is predicated on the basic premise that the poor are lazy, they don't want to work, they don't want to get out of poverty and they are happy with their lives as long as someone else is paying for their food, housing, phones etc.

I think what we need to address is whether the premise is correct or not. Because as long as you buy into that premise, it's a simple equation. Forgive me for this analogy but if you stop feeding your dog, the dog will run away and find food elsewhere. If you stop giving the poor money, they will go out and find money elsewhere.

Well, lets look at it. I'm not sure about your neighborhood but I pass, conservatively, 6 people on the side of the road with cardboard signs asking for money going too and from the office, the store, the gym, university etc.... If there is all of this free government support out there, why are these six people here? That is my personal anecdote but I think you could probably have similar experiences. Whenever I go back to Houston or out to Los Angeles, the numbers are higher.

Red state/blue state...doesn't matter.

It would seem that there would be fewer beggars on the roadside if there was this goldmine out there waiting to be exploited.

-------

But lets leave that alone. Lets assume there are all of these freebies out there. If you cut them off, what do you expect to happen? The beggar on 3rd and Washington is going to go to Payless and get a job selling shoes? Or at Wal Mart stocking shelves? I know people work for our health system have applied for 2nd jobs with Payless and Wal Mart (which is why I have used those two) and they didn't get an interview much less a job.

I'll admit it; I have no idea what formula companies use...mine included...to decide who gets a call back and who doesn't get an interview. It's also a guess that the guy who has been on the side of the road for months isn't going to be Payless's ideal candidate.
And if a job is awarded and the guy does well, congratulations...the minimum wage job he now has is just enough to get him off of public assistance but far less than he needs. Can we raise the minimum wage--the "liberal policy"--heck no.

The truth, as always, lays somewhere in the middle. At some point, it is highly likely that the guy on the side of the street with a sign made a decision or series of decisions that lead to that. And at some point, we've decided that the plight of the citizenry takes a back seat to your pocketbook. The citizenry has a right to expect good services for their tax monies. The rub isn't with the poor in my view....the rub is with what is paid out. For example, according to the Arizona Republic, there are 13,179 Maricopa County Employees. This doesn't count cities in Maricopa County such as Phoenix and Glendale. Of that 13,179, almost 10% make more than $76,000 per year or roughly twice what the average US Citizen makes. That is accessible at the following address:

Arizona Salaries for ASU, NAU, UA, Maricopa and Arizona employees

While some should make what they earn, several of those jobs can be folded into others (IT jobs for example). Maricopa is brick-red too so it's not a liberal thing for darn sure.

We can do more for the poor and we can do more for the citizens. We just have to decide what the priorities are and fund them. At the same time, take some of those 10% and transfer them into auditing how the welfare recipients are spending the money of the taxpayers.