Ryan- help the poor by slashing programs that help the poor

[Oddball]

Maybe you can 'splain it

How does removing assistance to the poor make them wealthier?

We know that redistributing trillions of dollars hasn't made them wealthier, as evidenced by the lack of decline in poverty rate, so how does removing the "assistance" harm them?

It makes them wealthier than they would be if they received no aid at all.

You have yet to explain how removing aid makes them better off

If they're still in poverty, you cannot claim that it made them better off.

It's not my job to make someone better off who does nothing for me or anyone else.

 

[rightwinger]

We know that redistributing trillions of dollars hasn't made them wealthier, as evidenced by the lack of decline in poverty rate, so how does removing the "assistance" harm them?

It makes them wealthier than they would be if they received no aid at all.

You have yet to explain how removing aid makes them better off

If they're still in poverty, you cannot claim that it made them better off.

It's not my job to make someone better off who does nothing for me or anyone else.

You have yet to explain how if a family receives aid to help them with food, housing and healthcare that removing that aid will put them in a better economic position

 

[edthecynic]

Better to invoke hyperbole than face the facts, huh?

Point of fact is that the rates of "poverty" haven't been reduced one iota since 1965.

As though that's supposed to be evidence of the success of socialistic wealth redistribution?

Not long ago PoliticalChic started a thread where she claimed there is no true poverty in the United States of America. Back then I pointed out how the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood was ALWAYS on BOTH sides of every issue. One day CON$ say that poverty is increasing to attack the war on poverty and the next day they say there is no poverty to attack the safety net programs.

The fact is that while the % of the people defined as poor has remained fairly consistent, their quality of life has greatly improved according to the Heritage Foundation.

The Myth of Widespread American Poverty

Last year, for example, the Census Bureau declared there were 36.5 million poor Americans--nearly 14 percent of the U.S. population. But a close look at the actual material living standards of persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau demonstrates that the Bureau's official poverty report is misleading. For most Americans, the word "poverty" means destitution, an inability to provide a Family with nutritious food, adequate clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 36.5 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit such a description.
In fact, numerous government reports indicate that most "poor" Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more personal property than average Americans throughout most of this century. Today, inflation-adjusted expenditures per person among the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the average American household in the early 1970s.1
The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:
In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes.
The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.
Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person.
The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian.2
Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.
Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs.
Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Sixty-four percent of the "poor" own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight.
Despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the United States, 84 percent of the "poor" report their families have "enough" food to eat; 13 percent state they "sometimes" do not have enough to eat, and 3 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.
The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.
Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes that are 100 percent above recommended levels.
Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

 

[Oddball]

It makes them wealthier than they would be if they received no aid at all.

You have yet to explain how removing aid makes them better off

If they're still in poverty, you cannot claim that it made them better off.

It's not my job to make someone better off who does nothing for me or anyone else.

You have yet to explain how if a family receives aid to help them with food, housing and healthcare that removing that aid will put them in a better economic position

Because you cannot prove a positive with negative evidence, which is what you're asking for.

OTOH, there's plenty of evidence that your "help" helps nobody, as expressed by the rates of poverty not changing in the nearly 50 years of the "Great Society" spend-a-thon.

 

[edthecynic]

We know that redistributing trillions of dollars hasn't made them wealthier, as evidenced by the lack of decline in poverty rate, so how does removing the "assistance" harm them?

It makes them wealthier than they would be if they received no aid at all.

You have yet to explain how removing aid makes them better off

If they're still in poverty, you cannot claim that it made them better off.

It's not my job to make someone better off who does nothing for me or anyone else.

It's that typical narrow-minded thinking that defines you as a CON$ervative!!!

You pick one rationalization that supports your position and then close your mind to anything and everything that contradicts you, no matter how obvious it is that you have missed something very important.

The poor are better off because their standard of living has greatly improved over the decades. What you fail to acknowledge is the standard used to define poverty has changed significantly over the last 50 years!!!!!

 

[Oddball]

Go fuck yourself, Uncle Joe.


EVERYBODY'S standard of living has increased over the last 50 years...It only makes sense that those at the lower end of the economic scale would be better off as well.

You have absolutely no evidence of any success of your beloved socialistic welfare state, and you know it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Your premise is false. Government doesn't help the poor. Government keeps them poor.

 

[hazlnut]

Here's where Ryan would have the Poor Girls come to God... And get some of His Will.

 

[Avorysuds]

rw's really get their kicks watching kids starve ... And forcing women to bear children.

SliminRyan is definitely your guy.

This is the moment you lost the debate, you and everyone reading realized this. Just a heads up.

Question, did TM hack your account? BTW, thanks for voting for one of the biggest war Presidents in US history...

 

[tjvh]

Paul Ryan Poverty Speech Proposes Reforming Programs For The Poor

In his first policy speech since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan said he and Mitt Romney will restore upward mobility and fight poverty in part by limiting the federal government's commitment to safety net programs.

Fight poverty by causing poverty. A novel approach but pretty much what we've come to expect from these two pricks.

Ryan noted that Americans born into poor families are more likely to stay poor as adults than Americans born into wealthy families.

Boy, nothing gets past this bag of slime.

So when do they get to the part about forcing women to bear children? That has been SliminRyan's position for as long as he's been in office and now Mitten's has endorsed a fundie nutter who says god wants raped women to be pregnant. but, I just bet they'll wait until after the election to tell us any more than that. WHY? Because they're both lying sneaks.

Welfare should be used to provide the poor with temporary assistance until they can find work and provide for themselves... It should not be a career choice.

 

[Avorysuds]

You both are stupid. Please dont vote. please.

Already have

Let me guess... For the guy who spent more on military/wars than Bush, expanded the Patriot act, signed the NDAA, grew homeland security, extended the Bush era tax cuts, started a few new "not wars" where the us helps kill tens of thousands of people... The guy who claimed to have a more transparent administration but has one of the most secretive back room deals done on some of the most important issues. The guy that claims to be a constitutional scholar but gets the constitutionality of his HC plan dead wrong.

Sounds like you voted for a Neocons wet dream. Sadly you could have voted for Mitt or Obama, lol.