The war on poverty:

[NYcarbineer]

The government hasn't made poverty worse. The government has kept poverty from being even worse than it would be had there been no government help for the poor.

One need only look around the world at the places where the poor get little or no help from the government to prove that.

Untrue.

Logical fallacy

How does a poor person become less poor if he receives no Medicaid?

 

[g5000]

You want to start a different debate, or do you just wish to pretend that Medicaid has somehow reduced the poverty rate?

Medicaid has reduced the poverty rate for seniors. Considerably.

You claimed the money spent "has had little impact on the number of people in poverty", and you have been proven wrong.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Anyone who believes the war on poverty was meant to end poverty is not worth speaking too.

Perhaps we need a "war on illiteracy".

Thats all you got? Good

All I got? BWA-HA-HA! You would definitely benefit from a war on illiteracy.

This statement of yours is the epitome of irony, in that I have posted quite a few facts, and sourced them, while you have contributed nothing to the conversation but some abrupt bullshit.

Dont forget you also noticed 1 to many o's too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one can produce a single example of where the lack of poverty programs has helped poor people, and yet, you are claiming that the poor would be better off if we didn't have programs to help them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You want to start a different debate, or do you just wish to pretend that Medicaid has somehow reduced the poverty rate?

Medicaid has reduced the poverty rate for seniors. Considerably.

You claimed the money spent "has had little impact on the number of people in poverty", and you have been proven wrong.

It's simple math. Medicaid has value. Medicaid increases a person's assets available to purchase certain goods and/or services that the person would not have otherwise had.

That makes the person less poor.

 

[g5000]

The aim of Paul Ryan's report is not to end the "War on Poverty"™. Its purpose is to increase the efficiency of federal aid to the poor and to reduce duplicative efforts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The war on poverty has been a proven failure for a long time, but amazingly it continues unabated.

The war on poverty, like all wars, was designed to enrich and empower the state.

No, the war on poverty was designed to enable a poor kid with a serious disease to get treatment that his parents would otherwise be unable to afford.

 

[g5000]

As I pointed out in my first post, the measurement of poverty has changed since 1964. Due to government being government, it has become easier to qualify as "poor" over the past 50 years. If you took the standards used in 2012 which qualify you as "poor" and applied them retroactively to 1964, adjusted for inflation, then the poverty rate in 1964 using those identical standards was much higher than it is today. Therefore, the poverty rate has been greatly reduced.

But we obviously should examine if making it easier to qualify as "poor" today than in 1964 is a good thing or whether it should be scaled back.

I believe there is room for scaling back, just as I believe the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare should be raised to at least 70 and indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward.

 

[BluesLegend]

I predict libs will counter that we have not spent enough, we need to raise taxes on the rich, redistribute wealth, socialize industries, etc. their normal socialist crap.

What is the right wing solution to poverty--other than concentration camps, I mean?

If only I could come up with a reply that was as stupid as your question, libs help me out here you are good at stupid.

That's some response, and it tends to verify my belief that conservatives have no solutions . . . only fear and greed.

Ahahaha a liberal using the word "solutions" you have only one, TAX and SPEND.

 

[BluesLegend]

I predict libs will counter that we have not spent enough, we need to raise taxes on the rich, redistribute wealth, socialize industries, etc. their normal socialist crap.

What is the right wing solution to poverty--other than concentration camps, I mean?

Prisons

Conservatives are always willing to spend money on prisons

(Gives rightwinger a Benny Hill pat on the head)

 

[BluesLegend]

Seniors are far, far better off today than they were 50 years ago, thanks to the "war on poverty".

Riiiight, congress borrowed $2 trillion dollars of their social security contributions and spent it on other crap and now have no way of paying the money back. And you were saying?

 

[rightwinger]

I predict libs will counter that we have not spent enough, we need to raise taxes on the rich, redistribute wealth, socialize industries, etc. their normal socialist crap.

What is the right wing solution to poverty--other than concentration camps, I mean?

Prisons

Conservatives are always willing to spend money on prisons

(Gives rightwinger a Benny Hill pat on the head)

With Republicans
They can always find money for war and prisons

Schools, healthcare and poverty programs.....not so much

 

[gipper]

The war on poverty has been a proven failure for a long time, but amazingly it continues unabated.

The war on poverty, like all wars, was designed to enrich and empower the state.

No, the war on poverty was designed to enable a poor kid with a serious disease to get treatment that his parents would otherwise be unable to afford.

So before the war on poverty, prior to 1965, all poor kids were denied treatment for serious diseases. Who knew?

The war on poverty was enacted primarily to enslave Americans to the state and in particular, to make sure the poor voted for Ds. I suppose in your world, this is a good thing...and means the war on poverty has been a tremendous success.

 

[Conan]

Except it hasn't made things worse.

While we still have poverty, we also have social mobility, people living longer and happier lives.

There is still much to be done..but saying it's made things worse is patently not true.

So after trillions of dollars we just made those in poverty live longer.....but they are still poor.

OK....

 

[g5000]

Seniors are far, far better off today than they were 50 years ago, thanks to the "war on poverty".

Riiiight, congress borrowed $2 trillion dollars of their social security contributions and spent it on other crap and now have no way of paying the money back. And you were saying?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the "War on Poverty". Try again.

 

[g5000]

US public and private debt crossed the 270% of GDP threshold in 2000. Until we deleverage to sane levels, our economic growth will suffer one to two percentage points of growth each year. That has a cumulative effect.

 

[BluesLegend]

Seniors are far, far better off today than they were 50 years ago, thanks to the "war on poverty".

Riiiight, congress borrowed $2 trillion dollars of their social security contributions and spent it on other crap and now have no way of paying the money back. And you were saying?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the "War on Poverty". Try again.

LOL alrighty then liberal logic go figure.

 

[BluesLegend]

When liberal policies fail their most common excuse is "that things would be even worse" to justify their failure. A close second excuse is "well at least we tried".

 

[Erand7899]

You want to start a different debate, or do you just wish to pretend that Medicaid has somehow reduced the poverty rate?

Medicaid has reduced the poverty rate for seniors. Considerably.

You claimed the money spent "has had little impact on the number of people in poverty", and you have been proven wrong.

No, I have not been proven wrong. You stated that less senior citizens are poor. Being poor and being in poverty are not the same thing. You lose.

The key to the entire poverty debate is the loose way that words are defined. Poor, in poverty, middle class, etc., are currently so loosely defined that one can twist the statistics anyway they desire, by simply altering the definitions they use.



DEFINITION OF OFFICIAL POVERTY
Following the Office of Management and Budget’s Statistical Policy Directive 14, the U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of dollar value thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total money income is less than the applicable threshold, then that family and every individual in it are considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds are updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and tax credits and excludes capital gains and noncash benefits (such as SNAP benefits and housing assistance). The thresholds do not vary geographically.

 

[g5000]

You want to start a different debate, or do you just wish to pretend that Medicaid has somehow reduced the poverty rate?

Medicaid has reduced the poverty rate for seniors. Considerably.

You claimed the money spent "has had little impact on the number of people in poverty", and you have been proven wrong.

No, I have not been proven wrong. You stated that less senior citizens are poor. Being poor and being in poverty are not the same thing. You lose.

.

Wrong again. See my first post in this topic. The poverty rate for seniors is considerably less than in 1964.