When what you're doing doesn't work for fifty years, it's time to try something new

[occupied]

And how long has the absolutely futile, incredibly wasteful, socially destructive "war on drugs" been going on?

Only jobs and wage growth will end poverty, the plutocrats need to step up or shut up.

You agree, then. Welfare will not end poverty.

No it was never meant to end poverty just to mitigate the worst of it. There can be no end of poverty in a capitalist society because there is too much money to be made off of misery.

Well, guess what. The poverty rate has increased in recent years.

Yes it's amazing how many people just chose to not work and live off of food stamps isn't it? <sarcasm>

Another thing about war: it's meant to mitigate the adversary, as the allies did with the Nazis.

"Let's just bomb a couple of their military installations. That oughta suffice." <sarcasm>

That does not really make sense but I am beginning to get the idea that you think people choose to be impoverished.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's our fearless leader said last night about our Cuba embargo.

So, does that mean we end the war on poverty now? Welfare hasn't worked in fifty years.

It's kept the poor from eating the rich. Look at any country that does not feed the hungry, rich people have to live behind walls and travel with heavily armed guards and are still subject to frequent murder and kidnapping. Welfare programs are revolution insurance, why do you not know that?

It's kept the poor from eating the rich.

Were the poor eating the rich before the war on poverty?

 

[shart_attack]

You agree, then. Welfare will not end poverty.

No it was never meant to end poverty just to mitigate the worst of it. There can be no end of poverty in a capitalist society because there is too much money to be made off of misery.

Well, guess what. The poverty rate has increased in recent years.

Yes it's amazing how many people just chose to not work and live off of food stamps isn't it? <sarcasm>

Another thing about war: it's meant to mitigate the adversary, as the allies did with the Nazis.

"Let's just bomb a couple of their military installations. That oughta suffice." <sarcasm>

That does not really make sense but I am beginning to get the idea that you think people choose to be impoverished.

Well, some of them do in fact choose to be unwed mothers when they are every bit of 16 years old.

I'm guessing that is George Bush's fault, yes?

 

[deltex1]

That's what our fearless leader said last night about our Cuba embargo.

So, does that mean we end the war on poverty now? Welfare hasn't worked in fifty years.

When it takes six years to figure out what hasn't worked for fifty years you have failed as president. You should have known that before you sought the job.

 

[occupied]

That's our fearless leader said last night about our Cuba embargo.

So, does that mean we end the war on poverty now? Welfare hasn't worked in fifty years.

It's kept the poor from eating the rich. Look at any country that does not feed the hungry, rich people have to live behind walls and travel with heavily armed guards and are still subject to frequent murder and kidnapping. Welfare programs are revolution insurance, why do you not know that?

It's kept the poor from eating the rich.

Were the poor eating the rich before the war on poverty?

It was headed that way in the 1920s and 30s before various social programs and big infrastructure projects were instituted. The socialist party was a real thing, labor unions were becoming more militant every year and bankers had to travel with armed guards. At least during the depression the poor rightly knew who was to blame. These days the poorest Americans are unmercifully scapegoated for everything from the mortgage crisis to the national debt. I guess it's why the plutocrats foolishly feel safe trying to dismantle the safety nets that indirectly keep their heads attached to their bloated bodies.

 

[occupied]

No it was never meant to end poverty just to mitigate the worst of it. There can be no end of poverty in a capitalist society because there is too much money to be made off of misery.

Well, guess what. The poverty rate has increased in recent years.

Yes it's amazing how many people just chose to not work and live off of food stamps isn't it? <sarcasm>

Another thing about war: it's meant to mitigate the adversary, as the allies did with the Nazis.

"Let's just bomb a couple of their military installations. That oughta suffice." <sarcasm>

That does not really make sense but I am beginning to get the idea that you think people choose to be impoverished.

Well, some of them do in fact choose to be unwed mothers when they are every bit of 16 years old.

I'm guessing that is George Bush's fault, yes?

Lack of opportunity, lack of education and a society that does not do much to change it because some people think it costs too much. How much does it cost to not do anything except feed people but starve their minds?

 

[shart_attack]

That's our fearless leader said last night about our Cuba embargo.

So, does that mean we end the war on poverty now? Welfare hasn't worked in fifty years.

It's kept the poor from eating the rich. Look at any country that does not feed the hungry, rich people have to live behind walls and travel with heavily armed guards and are still subject to frequent murder and kidnapping. Welfare programs are revolution insurance, why do you not know that?

It's kept the poor from eating the rich.

Were the poor eating the rich before the war on poverty?

It was headed that way in the 1920s and 30s before various social programs and big infrastructure projects were instituted. The socialist party was a real thing, labor unions were becoming more militant every year and bankers had to travel with armed guards. At least during the depression the poor rightly knew who was to blame. These days the poorest Americans are unmercifully scapegoated for everything from the mortgage crisis to the national debt. I guess it's why the plutocrats foolishly feel safe trying to dismantle the safety nets that indirectly keep their heads attached to their bloated bodies.

Your rhetoric is a tired, anachronistic by-product of the disconnected bloviatings of upper-class liberals in $5K tailor-made five-piece suits whose collective idea of suffering typically implies missing an episode of The Colbert Report or Politically Incorrect in a textbook funded by the Department of Education.

There is nothing fun about being poor. But some people, sadly enough, do in fact choose to be that way. And there is nothing you or I or your burnt-out liberal textbooks can do about it.

 

[occupied]

That's our fearless leader said last night about our Cuba embargo.

So, does that mean we end the war on poverty now? Welfare hasn't worked in fifty years.

It's kept the poor from eating the rich. Look at any country that does not feed the hungry, rich people have to live behind walls and travel with heavily armed guards and are still subject to frequent murder and kidnapping. Welfare programs are revolution insurance, why do you not know that?

It's kept the poor from eating the rich.

Were the poor eating the rich before the war on poverty?

It was headed that way in the 1920s and 30s before various social programs and big infrastructure projects were instituted. The socialist party was a real thing, labor unions were becoming more militant every year and bankers had to travel with armed guards. At least during the depression the poor rightly knew who was to blame. These days the poorest Americans are unmercifully scapegoated for everything from the mortgage crisis to the national debt. I guess it's why the plutocrats foolishly feel safe trying to dismantle the safety nets that indirectly keep their heads attached to their bloated bodies.

Your rhetoric is a tired, anachronistic by-product of the disconnected bloviatings of upper-class liberals in $5K tailor-made five-piece suits whose collective idea of suffering typically implies missing an episode of The Colbert Report or Politically Incorrect in a textbook funded by the Department of Education.

There is nothing fun about being poor. But some people, sadly enough, do in fact choose to be that way. And there is nothing you or I or your burnt-out liberal textbooks can do about it.

Assuming you are right about people choosing to be poor do you actually think it is a high enough percentage to warrant dismantling the welfare state and abandoning people to third world style misery?

 

[Billy000]

That's what our fearless leader said last night about our Cuba embargo.

So, does that mean we end the war on poverty now? Welfare hasn't worked in fifty years.

Just because the "war on poverty" was coined it doesn't mean its a war.

Ending welfare will do nothing to end poverty.

 

[norwegen]

That's what our fearless leader said last night about our Cuba embargo.

So, does that mean we end the war on poverty now? Welfare hasn't worked in fifty years.

Just because the "war on poverty" was coined it doesn't mean its a war.

Ending welfare will do nothing to end poverty.

Read, please. That is not the premise.

Has welfare ended poverty? Has it worked?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's our fearless leader said last night about our Cuba embargo.

So, does that mean we end the war on poverty now? Welfare hasn't worked in fifty years.

And how long has the absolutely futile, incredibly wasteful, socially destructive "war on drugs" been going on?

So ending welfare will end poverty in the US?

Or will ending welfare end some of the poverty?

Has it ended poverty?

Remember the premise of this topic.

But if ending welfare ends some of the poverty, isn't that better?

Only jobs and wage growth will end poverty, the plutocrats need to step up or shut up.

You agree, then. Welfare will not end poverty.

Ending welfare will not end poverty, and it will provoke an out lash on the rich.

Welfare ends some poverty, and as said above, provides revolution insurance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's our fearless leader said last night about our Cuba embargo.

So, does that mean we end the war on poverty now? Welfare hasn't worked in fifty years.

And how long has the absolutely futile, incredibly wasteful, socially destructive "war on drugs" been going on?

So ending welfare will end poverty in the US?

Or will ending welfare end some of the poverty?

Has it ended poverty?

Remember the premise of this topic.

But if ending welfare ends some of the poverty, isn't that better?

Only jobs and wage growth will end poverty, the plutocrats need to step up or shut up.

You agree, then. Welfare will not end poverty.

No it was never meant to end poverty just to mitigate the worst of it. There can be no end of poverty in a capitalist society because there is too much money to be made off of misery.

Well, guess what. The poverty rate has increased in recent years.

Because of the Great Recession caused by congressional programs from 1994 to 2006.

Do you want to go back to that failure?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's our fearless leader said last night about our Cuba embargo.

So, does that mean we end the war on poverty now? Welfare hasn't worked in fifty years.

It's kept the poor from eating the rich. Look at any country that does not feed the hungry, rich people have to live behind walls and travel with heavily armed guards and are still subject to frequent murder and kidnapping. Welfare programs are revolution insurance, why do you not know that?

It's kept the poor from eating the rich.

Were the poor eating the rich before the war on poverty?

Study the labor history of the 1870s through the 1890s and then again from 1929 through 1941. You don't know history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once you start asking the whining questions you admit defeat.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So ending welfare will end poverty in the US?

Or will ending welfare end some of the poverty?

Welfare is causing the poverty. It is working against what it is trying to preserve, the welfare of the common man.

 

[occupied]

So ending welfare will end poverty in the US?

Or will ending welfare end some of the poverty?

Welfare is causing the poverty. It is working against what it is trying to preserve, the welfare of the common man.

Young people like you are too far removed from how things used to be, sometimes I feel like I'm trying to explain ancient Rome to toddlers. You are obviously far too comfortable to know a damned thing about poverty, quit repeating things you have heard people say but cannot adequately explain.

 

[bripat9643]

So ending welfare will end poverty in the US?

Or will ending welfare end some of the poverty?

Move to Cuba if you want to see how good government is at ending poverty.

You should like it there.

 

[bripat9643]

So ending welfare will end poverty in the US?

Or will ending welfare end some of the poverty?

Welfare is causing the poverty. It is working against what it is trying to preserve, the welfare of the common man.

Young people like you are too far removed from how things used to be, sometimes I feel like I'm trying to explain ancient Rome to toddlers. You are obviously far too comfortable to know a damned thing about poverty, quit repeating things you have heard people say but cannot adequately explain.

What do you know about poverty?

 

[bripat9643]

That's our fearless leader said last night about our Cuba embargo.

So, does that mean we end the war on poverty now? Welfare hasn't worked in fifty years.

And how long has the absolutely futile, incredibly wasteful, socially destructive "war on drugs" been going on?

So ending welfare will end poverty in the US?

Or will ending welfare end some of the poverty?

Has it ended poverty?

Remember the premise of this topic.

But if ending welfare ends some of the poverty, isn't that better?

Only jobs and wage growth will end poverty, the plutocrats need to step up or shut up.

You agree, then. Welfare will not end poverty.

No it was never meant to end poverty just to mitigate the worst of it. There can be no end of poverty in a capitalist society because there is too much money to be made off of misery.

It looks to me like Johnson sold it as a way to end poverty:

State of the Union January 8 1964 Miller Center

State of the Union (January 8, 1964)

Lyndon B. Johnson

This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America. I urge this Congress and all Americans to join with me in that effort.

It will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won. The richest nation on earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it. One thousand dollars invested in salvaging an unemployable youth today can return $40,000 or more in his lifetime.​

 

[TemplarKormac]

Young people like you are too far removed from how things used to be, sometimes I feel like I'm trying to explain ancient Rome to toddlers.

Ahahaha!

What does me being 'young' have to do with it? Life is never meant to maintain the status quo, my friend. You know nothing of poverty because you have never experienced it. I have. I lived in abject poverty until the state took me from my birth parents. Try lecturing someone else, smartass.

You are obviously far too comfortable to know a damned thing about poverty, quit repeating things you have heard people say but cannot adequately explain.

No. I will not. Try learning what poverty is before you lecture anyone else about it. Spare me your indignance.