How Liberal Policies Keep People in Poverty

[RDD_1210]

Why do low income families use their food stamp and Medicaid benefits if they don't improve their lives?

Don't expect a reasonable response.

Dave is a pain and suffering alchemist. He believes that if you make sure that the poor endure the maximum amount of pain and suffering from their poverty, without any alleviation from sources other than those of their making,

magically the poor will become prosperous.

3/4 of Africa is proof that theory is dead wrong.

 

[nitroz]

Yeah, profits can be sacrificed to help people.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Yet no improvement of poverty has come from the welfare system... it is throwing taxpayer money at something without any effect.. it is, and always has been, about nothing more than the power

None? What do you think would be the status of the poor without our welfare system?

They would still be poor....

So.. you keep throwing money into the welfare system and poverty rates stay the same..

Pretty much screams that it is a failure

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Yet no improvement of poverty has come from the welfare system... it is throwing taxpayer money at something without any effect.. it is, and always has been, about nothing more than the power

Why do low income families use their food stamp and Medicaid benefits if they don't improve their lives?

Because they get the same result for free for doing nothing...

Again.. the welfare system has not helped the poverty situation one bit.. .it is a failure.. and it should be eliminated from the federal government

 

[DiamondDave]

Reform education and make it not cause so much debt.

Not a charge of the federal government.. and you, as an adult, are responsible for you OWN education and any expense that comes from it

Get the fed OUT of education

Then why have ANY public schools, at any level of government?

Why not let all education be market priced, with no taxpayer subsidy whatsoever, and thus create a really huge gap between the haves and the havenots when it comes to education;

that will better reflect the kind of society you want us to have won't it?

Because if the states or localities wish to find it in their way at their standards, that is their right.. it is not a function of the federal government... 10th amendment then states that since it is not, it is for the states or the individuals to handle

 

[DiamondDave]

Don't expect a reasonable response.

Dave is a pain and suffering alchemist. He believes that if you make sure that the poor endure the maximum amount of pain and suffering from their poverty, without any alleviation from sources other than those of their making,

magically the poor will become prosperous.

3/4 of Africa is proof that theory is dead wrong.

Beautiful how you two attribute statements to me that I never made.. and then draw your conclusions from those lies...

BRILLIANT!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not a charge of the federal government.. and you, as an adult, are responsible for you OWN education and any expense that comes from it

Get the fed OUT of education

Then why have ANY public schools, at any level of government?

Why not let all education be market priced, with no taxpayer subsidy whatsoever, and thus create a really huge gap between the haves and the havenots when it comes to education;

that will better reflect the kind of society you want us to have won't it?

Because if the states or localities wish to find it in their way at their standards, that is their right.. it is not a function of the federal government... 10th amendment then states that since it is not, it is for the states or the individuals to handle

I thought that you were arguing that giving aid to the poor, in PRINCIPLE, was a bad thing.

You're all over the map.

Now you wish to say that if all Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, cash assistance, educational assistance, etc., came from state government,

it would be a good thing? You would then support it, because it would help the poor, and be a positive towards the problems of poverty in this country.

In short, quit hiding behind your version of the Constitution and state your principles on principle.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yet no improvement of poverty has come from the welfare system... it is throwing taxpayer money at something without any effect.. it is, and always has been, about nothing more than the power

None? What do you think would be the status of the poor without our welfare system?

They would still be poor....

So.. you keep throwing money into the welfare system and poverty rates stay the same..

Pretty much screams that it is a failure

It's not a failure to the family whose child needs surgery and without Medicaid they couldn't pay for it.

 

[DiamondDave]

Then why have ANY public schools, at any level of government?

Why not let all education be market priced, with no taxpayer subsidy whatsoever, and thus create a really huge gap between the haves and the havenots when it comes to education;

that will better reflect the kind of society you want us to have won't it?

Because if the states or localities wish to find it in their way at their standards, that is their right.. it is not a function of the federal government... 10th amendment then states that since it is not, it is for the states or the individuals to handle

I thought that you were arguing that giving aid to the poor, in PRINCIPLE, was a bad thing.

You're all over the map.

Now you wish to say that if all Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, cash assistance, educational assistance, etc., came from state government,

it would be a good thing? You would then support it, because it would help the poor, and be a positive towards the problems of poverty in this country.

In short, quit hiding behind your version of the Constitution and state your principles on principle.

I can still say it is a bad thing.. but if the states have it in their constitution and decide to do it, that is on them... again, it is not a charge of the federal government, and with such the 10th amendment gives that power to the states or the individuals

 

[DiamondDave]

None? What do you think would be the status of the poor without our welfare system?

They would still be poor....

So.. you keep throwing money into the welfare system and poverty rates stay the same..

Pretty much screams that it is a failure

It's not a failure to the family whose child needs surgery and without Medicaid they couldn't pay for it.

Uh huh.. yet they are still poor with a sick kid.. and still do nothing to rectify it on their own...

Again.. with the welfare system, you have just as many people in poverty as you did without the welfare system.. it is a failure...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dave is a pain and suffering alchemist. He believes that if you make sure that the poor endure the maximum amount of pain and suffering from their poverty, without any alleviation from sources other than those of their making,

magically the poor will become prosperous.

3/4 of Africa is proof that theory is dead wrong.

Beautiful how you two attribute statements to me that I never made.. and then draw your conclusions from those lies...

BRILLIANT!!!

What is it with all the conservatives around here who profess to oppose the poverty programs,

then when you call them on it,

suddenly they support them!!!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Then why have ANY public schools, at any level of government?

Why not let all education be market priced, with no taxpayer subsidy whatsoever, and thus create a really huge gap between the haves and the havenots when it comes to education;

that will better reflect the kind of society you want us to have won't it?

Because if the states or localities wish to find it in their way at their standards, that is their right.. it is not a function of the federal government... 10th amendment then states that since it is not, it is for the states or the individuals to handle

I thought that you were arguing that giving aid to the poor, in PRINCIPLE, was a bad thing.
You're all over the map.

Now you wish to say that if all Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, cash assistance, educational assistance, etc., came from state government,

it would be a good thing? You would then support it, because it would help the poor, and be a positive towards the problems of poverty in this country.

In short, quit hiding behind your version of the Constitution and state your principles on principle.

Clearly this is why you're confused regularly. You have a massive comprehension problem. Of course it's not the charge of the feds to produce specific welfare. It's in the very pre-amble LOLberals use as proof for it. They do not undersand words.

On PRINCIPLE, helping the poor is the compassionate and human thing to do. However, FORCING other people to do what you think is right by way of theft at gun point LACKS ALL PRINCIPLE. It's a typical LOLberal area of confusion. They think that forcing others to do what they think is right by way of using the govt. to steal and then gove to others, is a principle. When in fact, it's actually a pure lack of principles. Or as Penn says, it's self righteous lazy bullying.

 

[DiamondDave]

3/4 of Africa is proof that theory is dead wrong.

Beautiful how you two attribute statements to me that I never made.. and then draw your conclusions from those lies...

BRILLIANT!!!

What is it with all the conservatives around here who profess to oppose the poverty programs,

then when you call them on it,

suddenly they support them!!!

Except I never stated that ending welfare would magically make people prosperous... nice try, asshole... try and stay on track...

 

[NYcarbineer]

They would still be poor....

So.. you keep throwing money into the welfare system and poverty rates stay the same..

Pretty much screams that it is a failure

It's not a failure to the family whose child needs surgery and without Medicaid they couldn't pay for it.

Uh huh.. yet they are still poor with a sick kid.. and still do nothing to rectify it on their own...

Again.. with the welfare system, you have just as many people in poverty as you did without the welfare system.. it is a failure...

A person with Medicaid is less poor than a person without it, all else being equal. So Medicaid is a success by your own measures,

your denials notwithstanding.

 

[DiamondDave]

It's not a failure to the family whose child needs surgery and without Medicaid they couldn't pay for it.

Uh huh.. yet they are still poor with a sick kid.. and still do nothing to rectify it on their own...

Again.. with the welfare system, you have just as many people in poverty as you did without the welfare system.. it is a failure...

A person with Medicaid is less poor than a person without it, all else being equal. So Medicaid is a success by your own measures,

your denials notwithstanding.

No.. they are not... there is no difference in their income, net worth, or any other economic status.. that is your assumption.. else you would see people on medicaid getting themselves off the medicaid because they are now less poor or working their way out of poverty.. sorry asshole, that is not happening

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yet no improvement of poverty has come from the welfare system... it is throwing taxpayer money at something without any effect.. it is, and always has been, about nothing more than the power

Why do low income families use their food stamp and Medicaid benefits if they don't improve their lives?

Because they get the same result for free for doing nothing...

Again.. the welfare system has not helped the poverty situation one bit.. .it is a failure.. and it should be eliminated from the federal government

Most Medicaid goes to children, the disabled, and the elderly.

Tell us how best to explain to them why under King David, it's now up to them to get off their asses and earn some money to pay for their healthcare.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uh huh.. yet they are still poor with a sick kid.. and still do nothing to rectify it on their own...

Again.. with the welfare system, you have just as many people in poverty as you did without the welfare system.. it is a failure...

A person with Medicaid is less poor than a person without it, all else being equal. So Medicaid is a success by your own measures,

your denials notwithstanding.

No.. they are not... there is no difference in their income, net worth, or any other economic status.. that is your assumption.. else you would see people on medicaid getting themselves off the medicaid because they are now less poor or working their way out of poverty.. sorry asshole, that is not happening

You lost this argument when you resorted to namecalling for no good reason.

Their buying power increases when they can use Medicaid for healthcare, thus they are less poor. They have insurance they wouldn't otherwise have.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Beautiful how you two attribute statements to me that I never made.. and then draw your conclusions from those lies...

BRILLIANT!!!

What is it with all the conservatives around here who profess to oppose the poverty programs,

then when you call them on it,

suddenly they support them!!!

Except I never stated that ending welfare would magically make people prosperous... nice try, asshole... try and stay on track...

So you admit that the welfare state doesn't keep people in poverty.

Shouldn't you be arguing with the author of this thread? That's his claim.

 

[Contumacious]

None? What do you think would be the status of the poor without our welfare system?

HHS BUDGET IS 967 BILLIONS

How much of that do they receive?

WHY are they still poor?


.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yet no improvement of poverty has come from the welfare system... it is throwing taxpayer money at something without any effect.. it is, and always has been, about nothing more than the power

None? What do you think would be the status of the poor without our welfare system?

They would still be poor....

So.. you keep throwing money into the welfare system and poverty rates stay the same..

Pretty much screams that it is a failure

So your belief is that if we removed our welfare system, the poverty rate would remain exactly the same? Do you have anything to support this claim?

Do you have an example of another country that has no welfare system and low poverty rates?