The war on poverty:

[Freemason9]

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.

Opinion, not fact.

It can also be argued that upper margin tax cuts have increased both the debt AND wealth concentration, the latter of which can be said to "cause our economic growth to suffer one to two percentage points of growth each year."

Anyone can SAY anything, but stats and history paints more interesting portraits.

 

[Sallow]

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.

"All around the world" is not the United States of America. We had poverty in this country before the war on poverty, and we have poverty in this country today. The $22 trillion spent has had little impact on the number of people in poverty, but it has been very successful in drawing a large sector of the American people into government dependency, and that was the purpose of the war on poverty from the outset.

People dependent upon government will vote for the party that offers them more from government. Who would have thunk it?

Why would there be fewer poor people if Medicaid had never happened? What would have made all the poor people who have benefited from Medicaid better off if they had never had that benefit?

How would they be richer today?

You want to start a different debate, or do you just wish to pretend that Medicaid has somehow reduced the poverty rate? The answer is what do I get, and what does it cost me to get it.

If I was working 30 hours a week and making $210 each week, I would probably just be scraping by, and if someone offered a job with 40 hours, at the same hourly rate, I would probably take it. Likewise, if someone offered me $0.50 per hour more, even with only 30 hours, I would probably take it. Why? Because I gain a little, with only a little extra effort.

If I am not working any hours, and getting $200 a week in welfare benefits, plus medicaid and food stamps, and someone offers me a job with 30 hours and $210 per week, I probably would not take it. My gain would only be $10 per week, and I would have to work 30 hours to get that $10. Not a good trade off.

And, that is why paying people to sit home, on their ass, is bad for society.

How is it you think an American citizen, working full time, depending on a paycheck and working for $210 a week is "good" for society?

What the **** is it with you folks?

Why the **** do you think it's a ******* good thing that people live in poverty.

It freakin isn't.

It's one of the most injurious things to a society.

It is the cause of crime and revolution. And has been since real societies have existed.

What an asshat view.

 

[Sallow]

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

Poor and in poverty are not the same thing. We have a lot of poor people in this country who are not in poverty. Perhaps we should commence a war on the poor?

Of course it enriches and empowers the state.

What the ****.

You want a poor and weak state?

Really?

What the **** is wrong with you!

 

[longknife]

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.

"All around the world" is not the United States of America. We had poverty in this country before the war on poverty, and we have poverty in this country today. The $22 trillion spent has had little impact on the number of people in poverty, but it has been very successful in drawing a large sector of the American people into government dependency, and that was the purpose of the war on poverty from the outset.

People dependent upon government will vote for the party that offers them more from government. Who would have thunk it?

Why would there be fewer poor people if Medicaid had never happened? What would have made all the poor people who have benefited from Medicaid better off if they had never had that benefit?

How would they be richer today?

You want to start a different debate, or do you just wish to pretend that Medicaid has somehow reduced the poverty rate? The answer is what do I get, and what does it cost me to get it.

If I was working 30 hours a week and making $210 each week, I would probably just be scraping by, and if someone offered a job with 40 hours, at the same hourly rate, I would probably take it. Likewise, if someone offered me $0.50 per hour more, even with only 30 hours, I would probably take it. Why? Because I gain a little, with only a little extra effort.

If I am not working any hours, and getting $200 a week in welfare benefits, plus medicaid and food stamps, and someone offers me a job with 30 hours and $210 per week, I probably would not take it. My gain would only be $10 per week, and I would have to work 30 hours to get that $10. Not a good trade off.

And, that is why paying people to sit home, on their ass, is bad for society.

How is it you think an American citizen, working full time, depending on a paycheck and working for $210 a week is "good" for society?

What the **** is it with you folks?

Why the **** do you think it's a ******* good thing that people live in poverty.

It freakin isn't.

It's one of the most injurious things to a society.

It is the cause of crime and revolution. And has been since real societies have existed.

What an asshat view.

The fallback of the ignorant and bigoted is the excessive use of profanity to try to make their unsupported point.

 

[Sallow]

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.

"All around the world" is not the United States of America. We had poverty in this country before the war on poverty, and we have poverty in this country today. The $22 trillion spent has had little impact on the number of people in poverty, but it has been very successful in drawing a large sector of the American people into government dependency, and that was the purpose of the war on poverty from the outset.

People dependent upon government will vote for the party that offers them more from government. Who would have thunk it?

Why would there be fewer poor people if Medicaid had never happened? What would have made all the poor people who have benefited from Medicaid better off if they had never had that benefit?

How would they be richer today?

You want to start a different debate, or do you just wish to pretend that Medicaid has somehow reduced the poverty rate? The answer is what do I get, and what does it cost me to get it.

If I was working 30 hours a week and making $210 each week, I would probably just be scraping by, and if someone offered a job with 40 hours, at the same hourly rate, I would probably take it. Likewise, if someone offered me $0.50 per hour more, even with only 30 hours, I would probably take it. Why? Because I gain a little, with only a little extra effort.

If I am not working any hours, and getting $200 a week in welfare benefits, plus medicaid and food stamps, and someone offers me a job with 30 hours and $210 per week, I probably would not take it. My gain would only be $10 per week, and I would have to work 30 hours to get that $10. Not a good trade off.

And, that is why paying people to sit home, on their ass, is bad for society.

How is it you think an American citizen, working full time, depending on a paycheck and working for $210 a week is "good" for society?

What the **** is it with you folks?

Why the **** do you think it's a ******* good thing that people live in poverty.

It freakin isn't.

It's one of the most injurious things to a society.

It is the cause of crime and revolution. And has been since real societies have existed.

What an asshat view.

The fallback of the ignorant and bigoted is the excessive use of profanity to try to make their unsupported point.

Sometimes when responding to a post so unflinchingly stupid, profanity is needed.

Just sayin'.

And bigoted?

Yeah..I can't stand stupid people.

So sue me.