Our Sixty Year War on Poverty

[NYcarbineer]

First of all considering population increases, even a 41% to 27% decrease may not mean the overall # of poor has decreased at all.

Oh. My. God. The stupidity of this statement should simply stand for itself.

Ok, I did the math.

in 1960 there were 18.8 million black people in the US. If you assume a 41% poverty rate, you get 7.7 million poor blacks. In 2012 there are 44 million black people in the US, and a poverty rate of 27% gives 12 million poor black people.

So for all the money we have spent, the problem has gotten worse on a PEOPLE level, actual poor people, not percentages.

We spend money to help the poor be less poor, or not poor. That has nothing to do with an economy that by its nature keeps creating more of the poor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Things would be much worse without the War on Poverty, based on how much the economic fortunes of this country have declined in the last 50 years.

Maybe they might have actually tried to better themselves instead of expecting government handouts. The fucking horror.....

What the war on poverty forgot was that people may need to be shamed out of working their way out of poor life choices (theirs or their parents). There is nothing wrong with helping people, however we removed the stigma of not being able to care for yourself or your family. Couple that with the basic human fact that if you pay someone for something, you get more of it, we created a system that doesn't create the incentive to get out of the system, it creates an incentive to stay in it, both for those in it, and those running it.

So we'd be better off if none of the millions who've received Medicaid in the last 50 years had never gotten a nickel's worth of healthcare assistance.

Prove it.

prove that we would currently be worse off now if they didn't.

So you can't prove it but won't admit it. lol, that's doubly enjoyable.

By simple math if you need healthcare, but can't afford it, and some 3rd party pays for it, you are better off.

 

[rightwinger]

How much money have we wasted on the military and yet we still have wars?

Seems like the Defense Department is a waste

 

[martybegan]

First of all considering population increases, even a 41% to 27% decrease may not mean the overall # of poor has decreased at all.

Oh. My. God. The stupidity of this statement should simply stand for itself.

Ok, I did the math.

in 1960 there were 18.8 million black people in the US. If you assume a 41% poverty rate, you get 7.7 million poor blacks. In 2012 there are 44 million black people in the US, and a poverty rate of 27% gives 12 million poor black people.

So for all the money we have spent, the problem has gotten worse on a PEOPLE level, actual poor people, not percentages.

We spend money to help the poor be less poor, or not poor. That has nothing to do with an economy that by its nature keeps creating more of the poor.

So if the spending isn't a solution why are we doing it, and more importantly, why support it?

Don't blame the economy for the poor life choices the "war on poverty" subsidizes.

 

[martybegan]

How much money have we wasted on the military and yet we still have wars?

Seems like the Defense Department is a waste

Only if we were invaded and conquered. Nice attempt at a comparison though, 3/10.

 

[martybegan]

Things would be much worse without the War on Poverty, based on how much the economic fortunes of this country have declined in the last 50 years.

Maybe they might have actually tried to better themselves instead of expecting government handouts. The fucking horror.....

What the war on poverty forgot was that people may need to be shamed out of working their way out of poor life choices (theirs or their parents). There is nothing wrong with helping people, however we removed the stigma of not being able to care for yourself or your family. Couple that with the basic human fact that if you pay someone for something, you get more of it, we created a system that doesn't create the incentive to get out of the system, it creates an incentive to stay in it, both for those in it, and those running it.

So we'd be better off if none of the millions who've received Medicaid in the last 50 years had never gotten a nickel's worth of healthcare assistance.

Prove it.

prove that we would currently be worse off now if they didn't.

So you can't prove it but won't admit it. lol, that's doubly enjoyable.

By simple math if you need healthcare, but can't afford it, and some 3rd party pays for it, you are better off.

The individual might be better off, but society as a whole may end up paying more than it should.

and you are just butthurt you got your own "gotcha" ably turned on you and can't reply.

awwwww, NYcarbineer has a sadz....

 

[rightwinger]

How much money have we wasted on the military and yet we still have wars?

Seems like the Defense Department is a waste

Only if we were invaded and conquered. Nice attempt at a comparison though, 3/10.

Thinking that the war on poverty can't be successful unless all poverty is ended is the same thing as thinking our military has not been successful unless it has ended all wars

 

[g5000]

Ok, I did the math.

You know this is going to be good when a retard says, "I did the math."

in 1960 there were 18.8 million black people in the US. If you assume a 41% poverty rate, you get 7.7 million poor blacks. In 2012 there are 44 million black people in the US, and a poverty rate of 27% gives 12 million poor black people.

So for all the money we have spent, the problem has gotten worse on a PEOPLE level, actual poor people, not percentages.

Holy shit. You actually doubled down on your stupidity?

Okay. Let's play, retard.

Using your same idiot illogic, there were 11 million blacks who weren't poor in 1960.

In 2012, there were 32 million who weren't poor.

If the poverty rate had stayed the same, there would be 18 million poor blacks, instead of 12 million, and only 26 million would not be in poverty.

Get it now, dumbass?

Geezus, sometimes the Tsunami of Tstupidity™ I see here makes me want to lie down and just let it crush the landscape.

 

[g5000]

prove that we would currently be worse off now if they didn't.

This is called "moving the goalposts".

The posit in the OP was that poverty has not changed. Once that was debunked, the retards had to scramble and move the goalposts.

 

[g5000]

Is the War on Poverty™ expensive?

Yep.

A society has to decide if it wants to spend the money. Simple as that.

 

[martybegan]

prove that we would currently be worse off now if they didn't.

This is called "moving the goalposts".

The posit in the OP was that poverty has not changed. Once that was debunked, the retards had to scramble and move the goalposts.

My point is that either can't be proved, but thanks for being dense enough not to notice.

 

[martybegan]

Is the War on Poverty™ expensive?

Yep.

A society has to decide if it wants to spend the money. Simple as that.

and when it comes to pass that the money is being spent foolishly, the progressive response is to SPEND MORE! THAT WILL FIX IT!!!

 

[g5000]

What the war on poverty forgot was that people may need to be shamed out of working their way out of poor life choices (theirs or their parents). There is nothing wrong with helping people, however we removed the stigma of not being able to care for yourself or your family.

28 percent of seniors were in poverty. Half were uninsured.

Thus the "shame them into straigtening up and flying straight" theory is just so much bullshit.

 

[rightwinger]

In our 60 year war on poverty

Americans have not starved
Families have had a roof over their head
They have had healthcare
Millions have received educations

Seems successful to me

 

[g5000]

Is the War on Poverty™ expensive?

Yep.

A society has to decide if it wants to spend the money. Simple as that.

and when it comes to pass that the money is being spent foolishly, the progressive response is to SPEND MORE! THAT WILL FIX IT!!!

28 percent in poverty down to 9 percent.

50 percent uninsured to 3 percent uninsured.

This is martybegan's idea of "money being spent foolishly".

 

[martybegan]

Ok, I did the math.

You know this is going to be good when a retard says, "I did the math."

in 1960 there were 18.8 million black people in the US. If you assume a 41% poverty rate, you get 7.7 million poor blacks. In 2012 there are 44 million black people in the US, and a poverty rate of 27% gives 12 million poor black people.

So for all the money we have spent, the problem has gotten worse on a PEOPLE level, actual poor people, not percentages.

Holy shit. You actually doubled down on your stupidity?

Okay. Let's play, retard.

Using your same idiot illogic, there were 11 million blacks who weren't poor in 1960.

In 2012, there were 32 million who weren't poor.

If the poverty rate had stayed the same, there would be 18 million poor blacks, instead of 12 million, and only 26 million would not be in poverty.

Get it now, dumbass?

Geezus, sometimes the Tsunami of Tstupidity™ I see here makes me want to lie down and just let it crush the landscape.

So what did we pay all that money for then? There are more poor blacks now that there were before, even if there are more that are not poor. And who is to say the ones who are NOT poor are not poor because of all this money we are spending? The point is the ones that are still poor are still poor in part BECAUSE of the money we are spending, which is basically paying them not to fucking riot, instead of trying to elevate them.

You have been measured and found wanting, now go fuck that goat.

 

[rightwinger]

What the War on Poverty was about

 

[martybegan]

Is the War on Poverty™ expensive?

Yep.

A society has to decide if it wants to spend the money. Simple as that.

and when it comes to pass that the money is being spent foolishly, the progressive response is to SPEND MORE! THAT WILL FIX IT!!!

28 percent in poverty down to 9 percent.

50 percent uninsured to 3 percent uninsured.

This is martybegan's idea of "money being spent foolishly".

Yes it is. Keep sucking that government dick, but some of us realize it is money that never should have been spent in the first place because the federal government was never designed to perform these functions.

 

[Siete]

helping poor people buy food and pay their bills is bad for the economy. It only benefits the poor. Just ask any RW'r.

 

[rightwinger]

The supposed "failure" of the War on Poverty is more of a result of the failure of supply side economics than a failure of anti-poverty programs