Where do republicans get this myth that Democrats believe welfare is the key to ending poverty?

[daws101]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?

Democrats are not about to end poverty.
Their specialty is creating it.

Poverty was around long before the democrats "created"it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?

Democrats are not about to end poverty.
Their specialty is creating it.

Poverty was around long before the democrats "created"it.

The poor will always be among us.

Democrats have figured out new ways of creating more of them.

 

[rdean]

maybe this will help :

Look at "Follow teachings of Jesus". Hilarious.

Odd I didn't see it at all on the picture of the democrat brain I posted.

Wonder why?

Simple. That ones not realistic. This one is.
There, glad I solved that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?

Democrats are not about to end poverty.
Their specialty is creating it.

Poverty was around long before the democrats "created"it.

Correct. But before liberalism, nobody tried to keep the poor--poor or expand the poor.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It never was intended to end poverty. It was another way for dems to keep their voters in perpetual generational poverty and keep the votes rolling in. Dems could care less about anyone's welfare.

Can you "end" poverty?

We have spent trillions on a war machine and it hasn't ended war

When I was 20 I got my first apartment. Fascinated with birds, one of my first objectives was to hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.

Spring came along and the snow melted, so I finally got to meet my new elderly next door neighbor, and we began talking.

He said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing. But if you keep it there year long, you may be doing the birds more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce. But by keeping it there all summer long, the birds will forget how to feed themselves. Their young will learn to depend on that feeder too, and if you ever get bored filling the feeder or otherwise move, the birds that depended on your feeder will parish."

Great advice the old man gave me. But I never remembered that experience because of the birds. I more or less remembered it because as I got older, I realized that's exactly what our government was doing--keeping the feeder out year round.

While we may never be able to solve poverty, we certainly can reduce the amount of poor. We can start by taking that feeder down.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.

What is wrong with helping people who need help?

IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******


.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.


.


.

If you make any form of charity voluntary then there would be little to no support for these types of individuals.

Imagine what would happen if employment benefits were entirely voluntary. Sure, you think UE is a horrible program like any other libertarian, but imagine what would happen if this country fell into another Great Recession where 8 MILLION people lost their jobs within less than a year. Do you remember any charitable rich people giving a helping hand to those 8 million unemployed in the last recession? No of course not because they didn't. Obama had to extend the benefits through legislation to keep those people afloat. Imagine if you lost your job against your will in the time of a great recession and you realized it was next to impossible for you to find another job to support your family. I am willing to bet that if you were in such desperate situation you would turn to benefits after awhile...

BE THAT AS IT MAY , IN A FREE COUNTRY , CHARITY MUST BE VOLUNTARY.

Charity is Best Left to the Private Sphere


Unfortunately, politicians no longer take the time to consider that their actions, though well-intentioned, are ill-advised at best and unconstitutional at worst. They fail to recognize that charity cannot be coerced; it must be given freely. In order to demonstrate their compassionfor disaster victims (or welfare recipients, the elderly, and any number of interest groups), politicians must necessarily take money from some in the form of taxes in order to relieve the suffering of others. But is it benevolent to take from one man without his consent and give to another? Does this not necessarily create new hardship for the many others forced to contribute to the government bureaucracy?

.

What happens when you have major portions of cities or states living in poverty due to economic downturns outside of the control of the workers

Can local charities support an entire state with food, housing and healthcare?

When I was younger I lived through the Reagan recession. I don't care what anybody says, the Reagan recession was much worse than Obama's.

I found myself out of a job with little experience at anything and no good jobs to apply for. So I took anything I could get. I signed up at every temporary agency in the book. I took minimum wage jobs although I had to work seven days a week. I had to cut down on things including food. I ate a lot of hamburgers and spaghetti back then.

I took jobs that paid percentage which in most cases I was working for less than minimum wage. But I pulled through it.

People only think they can't live without government. But if you want or need to, you can. It just takes a lot of sacrifices and work that most younger and middle-aged people won't do today.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you don't think the mother uses the food that comes from those food stamps?

Our government gives incentives for poor people to have children, then we can't figure out why we can't solve poverty?

That's like saying I can't solve the problem of the raccoon digging in my garbage can, but I keep the lid off all night and throw away good food that I couldn't finish for dinner every night.

If you can't take care of your kids, they should be put up for adoption. While not the most humane thing to do, it would stop the incentive for these poor people to have children, and then there would be less of them in the future.

Yeah she probably does. And? She is being stretched pretty thin on the dirt poor income she is on.

Incentives to have children? Ok so obviously you know nothing about the actual facts of food stamps. On average, a household gets about $133 per month per person as a supplement to an income that is on average $744 per month. Do you really think a mother is profiting off of $133 per month? Do you not even know how much it costs to raise a child? You see these facts matter.

So your fascist solution to this problem is for parents to be forced to put up their kids for adoption? So its better for the government to separate families then to pay for a welfare program? Hmm. Ok so lets go with this for a moment. You do realize that people aren't just lining up to adopt kids right? It's relatively uncommon. There's no way such small demand for adopted children would fix the actual problem.

As I pointed out, it might not for them, but in the future, women would be fearful of losing their child to adoption and maybe....just maybe they would be a little more responsible about having children in the first place.

I know of plenty of women that had children just to get more government benefits. It's really not too much of a secret in the ghetto. Do you think I don't see how many children these mothers have with them when they get in front of me at the grocery store counter? Do you think I don't notice what kind of food items they are buying? Do you think I'm making it all up when I tell you about the greeting cards they buy with cash, and cigarettes, and beer, and sacks of dog food, and cat litter? I don't know about these things?

Lol you know plenty of women who profit off of having children? How do you know? How do you know they had these kids to get benefits? Are you sure you aren't just making a bigoted assumption? And again, based on the actual facts about food stamps, mothers do not profit off of it even if they wanted to. And are you so nosy that you pay attention to how these women pay for their items? Can't you mind your own business? Talk about being a self righteous asshole. And okay, yeah, they do spend cash on such things if they can afford them. So what? Are they not allowed to spend any income they make? Again, the income they get is complete shit anyway. These people are dirt poor.

Dirt poor, huh?

If they are so dirt poor, why do they smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol? If they are so dirt poor, why do they need a 50 lbs. dog to take care of? If they are so dirt poor, what's with all that cat litter they buy?

Yeah, you bet I notice what people are doing with my tax money. It is my business. Why shouldn't I notice? You lefties rant on about how the rich should pay for this, how the rich should pay for that, how much the rich should pay their employees, how much more they should pay in taxes, but dare a taxpayer sound off about the abuse of his money, now you've crossed the line.

This is one of the many problems we have with you libs: you're fine with working people paying for others food, but in the meantime, they are feeding their animals instead of themselves. But we are the heartless ones.

Oh Christ. Even if you were correct that these women you observed were on food stamps (which is obviously a wild assumption), what you are saying is anecdotal. What matters is the actual statistics on food stamps.

Again, I support my taxes going to this program.

Well I don't.....at least without no oversight.

Yes, I know when people are paying with food stamps. It's right in front of your face for crying out loud. At times when I don't buy very much and exit the store quickly, I even see what kind of vehicles they are driving; vehicles I wish I could afford. But I'm paying to feed them.

 

[IsaacNewton]

It never was intended to end poverty. It was another way for dems to keep their voters in perpetual generational poverty and keep the votes rolling in. Dems could care less about anyone's welfare.

Can you "end" poverty?

We have spent trillions on a war machine and it hasn't ended war

When I was 20 I got my first apartment. Fascinated with birds, one of my first objectives was to hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.

Spring came along and the snow melted, so I finally got to meet my new elderly next door neighbor, and we began talking.

He said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing. But if you keep it there year long, you may be doing the birds more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce. But by keeping it there all summer long, the birds will forget how to feed themselves. Their young will learn to depend on that feeder too, and if you ever get bored filling the feeder or otherwise move, the birds that depended on your feeder will parish."

Great advice the old man gave me. But I never remembered that experience because of the birds. I more or less remembered it because as I got older, I realized that's exactly what our government was doing--keeping the feeder out year round.

While we may never be able to solve poverty, we certainly can reduce the amount of poor. We can start by taking that feeder down.

So you believe a bird feeder eliminates all other sources of food for birds, rather than easing the reliance on those food sources thereby increasing their number. So when the bird feeder goes away there is actually more food available because there were less birds relying on them.

And you also believe animals are not capable of finding a food source without you?

This is one of those stories that seems to make sense until you understand nature. Then it doesn't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It never was intended to end poverty. It was another way for dems to keep their voters in perpetual generational poverty and keep the votes rolling in. Dems could care less about anyone's welfare.

Can you "end" poverty?

We have spent trillions on a war machine and it hasn't ended war

When I was 20 I got my first apartment. Fascinated with birds, one of my first objectives was to hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.

Spring came along and the snow melted, so I finally got to meet my new elderly next door neighbor, and we began talking.

He said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing. But if you keep it there year long, you may be doing the birds more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce. But by keeping it there all summer long, the birds will forget how to feed themselves. Their young will learn to depend on that feeder too, and if you ever get bored filling the feeder or otherwise move, the birds that depended on your feeder will parish."

Great advice the old man gave me. But I never remembered that experience because of the birds. I more or less remembered it because as I got older, I realized that's exactly what our government was doing--keeping the feeder out year round.

While we may never be able to solve poverty, we certainly can reduce the amount of poor. We can start by taking that feeder down.

So you believe a bird feeder eliminates all other sources of food for birds, rather than easing the reliance on those food sources thereby increasing their number. So when the bird feeder goes away there is actually more food available because there were less birds relying on them.

And you also believe animals are not capable of finding a food source without you?

This is one of those stories that seems to make sense until you understand nature. Then it doesn't.

Nature is taking the path of least resistance. As Limbaugh said repeatedly, if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

Our so-called compassionate security nets keep people from moving ahead in life. Depending on social programs is like bing in limbo. You just sort of hang there not going up or down, just wasting the time God gave you on this earth; time that would otherwise be spent getting ahead in life.

Obviously the message behind my last post flew right over your head.

 

[IsaacNewton]

It never was intended to end poverty. It was another way for dems to keep their voters in perpetual generational poverty and keep the votes rolling in. Dems could care less about anyone's welfare.

Can you "end" poverty?

We have spent trillions on a war machine and it hasn't ended war

When I was 20 I got my first apartment. Fascinated with birds, one of my first objectives was to hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.

Spring came along and the snow melted, so I finally got to meet my new elderly next door neighbor, and we began talking.

He said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing. But if you keep it there year long, you may be doing the birds more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce. But by keeping it there all summer long, the birds will forget how to feed themselves. Their young will learn to depend on that feeder too, and if you ever get bored filling the feeder or otherwise move, the birds that depended on your feeder will parish."

Great advice the old man gave me. But I never remembered that experience because of the birds. I more or less remembered it because as I got older, I realized that's exactly what our government was doing--keeping the feeder out year round.

While we may never be able to solve poverty, we certainly can reduce the amount of poor. We can start by taking that feeder down.

So you believe a bird feeder eliminates all other sources of food for birds, rather than easing the reliance on those food sources thereby increasing their number. So when the bird feeder goes away there is actually more food available because there were less birds relying on them.

And you also believe animals are not capable of finding a food source without you?

This is one of those stories that seems to make sense until you understand nature. Then it doesn't.

Nature is taking the path of least resistance. As Limbaugh said repeatedly, if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

Our so-called compassionate security nets keep people from moving ahead in life. Depending on social programs is like bing in limbo. You just sort of hang there not going up or down, just wasting the time God gave you on this earth; time that would otherwise be spent getting ahead in life.

Obviously the message behind my last post flew right over your head.

No but I'm sure you feel good thinking that.

Your analogy doesn't work is all I was pointing out. Yes some people do become dependent, but most don't. They move on. Are you advocating that there be no security net?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It never was intended to end poverty. It was another way for dems to keep their voters in perpetual generational poverty and keep the votes rolling in. Dems could care less about anyone's welfare.

Can you "end" poverty?

We have spent trillions on a war machine and it hasn't ended war

When I was 20 I got my first apartment. Fascinated with birds, one of my first objectives was to hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.

Spring came along and the snow melted, so I finally got to meet my new elderly next door neighbor, and we began talking.

He said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing. But if you keep it there year long, you may be doing the birds more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce. But by keeping it there all summer long, the birds will forget how to feed themselves. Their young will learn to depend on that feeder too, and if you ever get bored filling the feeder or otherwise move, the birds that depended on your feeder will parish."

Great advice the old man gave me. But I never remembered that experience because of the birds. I more or less remembered it because as I got older, I realized that's exactly what our government was doing--keeping the feeder out year round.

While we may never be able to solve poverty, we certainly can reduce the amount of poor. We can start by taking that feeder down.

So you believe a bird feeder eliminates all other sources of food for birds, rather than easing the reliance on those food sources thereby increasing their number. So when the bird feeder goes away there is actually more food available because there were less birds relying on them.

And you also believe animals are not capable of finding a food source without you?

This is one of those stories that seems to make sense until you understand nature. Then it doesn't.

Nature is taking the path of least resistance. As Limbaugh said repeatedly, if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

Our so-called compassionate security nets keep people from moving ahead in life. Depending on social programs is like bing in limbo. You just sort of hang there not going up or down, just wasting the time God gave you on this earth; time that would otherwise be spent getting ahead in life.

Obviously the message behind my last post flew right over your head.

No but I'm sure you feel good thinking that.

Your analogy doesn't work is all I was pointing out. Yes some people do become dependent, but most don't. They move on. Are you advocating that there be no security net?

No, but I think not such a generous one.

In some studies, people on the dole live better than the working. How is that equitable? I live in the suburbs and go to work everyday to live here. Yet, HUD residents live here as well. Few of them work and none can afford to live here on their own. How it that fair?

If most people don't become dependent on welfare, then why is it expanding every year?

Today, if you are in a room with 14 other people, two of those people are being fed by taxpayers. Yet I'm told repeatedly how great our economy is under Obama.

Lots of jobs out there to be had, yet we have the most people not working in this country since the mid 70's. Okay, there are people who retired or are otherwise incapable of working, but 94 million people all can't fall under those categories.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?

rightwingnuts pretend people on the left believe certain things whether we believe them or not....and then insult us for "believing" the things they made up in their limited little brains.

And once again, leftwingnuts project their own faults and bullshit onto others.

stop projecting, cesspool

You don't have to work this hard to convince people that you're a meaningless ****, believe me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.

Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.

No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?

Democrats are not about to end poverty.
Their specialty is creating it.

Poverty was around long before the democrats "created"it.

How many times were you dropped on your head as a baby, again? Only explanation for "I'm going to be deliberately obtuse because it's such a clever debate tool!"

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It never was intended to end poverty. It was another way for dems to keep their voters in perpetual generational poverty and keep the votes rolling in. Dems could care less about anyone's welfare.

Can you "end" poverty?

We have spent trillions on a war machine and it hasn't ended war

Yes, "you can end poverty". Wars will never end. They'll continue to increase.

How do you "end poverty"? In fact, how do you even DEFINE poverty, when it shifts relative to the society and standard of living around it? I mean, we talk about "poverty" in the United States, but compared to countries less advanced, with lower standards of living, our poverty is comparable to their middle or even upper class?

I think you hit on it. Its a relevant term and compared to other countries that arent as fortunate as we are, I believe we can stop it. That doesn't mean there arent going to be dirt poor people but as a whole, poverty can be severely dented. Poverty has greatly increased under this president and its a travesty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It never was intended to end poverty. It was another way for dems to keep their voters in perpetual generational poverty and keep the votes rolling in. Dems could care less about anyone's welfare.

Can you "end" poverty?

We have spent trillions on a war machine and it hasn't ended war

Yes, "you can end poverty". Wars will never end. They'll continue to increase.

How do you "end poverty"? In fact, how do you even DEFINE poverty, when it shifts relative to the society and standard of living around it? I mean, we talk about "poverty" in the United States, but compared to countries less advanced, with lower standards of living, our poverty is comparable to their middle or even upper class?

I think you hit on it. Its a relevant term and compared to other countries that arent as fortunate as we are, I believe we can stop it. That doesn't mean there arent going to be dirt poor people but as a whole, poverty can be severely dented. Poverty has greatly increased under this president and its a travesty.

Correct. Liberals have really boxed themselves in on this topic. On one hand, they tell us how great the economy is under DumBama and how all these jobs were created. On the other hand, they tell us how badly people need to be on these social programs because they are unfortunate. Which is it?

Well......the only reason you have all these people on social programs in a great economy is because the Democrats want them there. It's the only explanation that makes any sense.

 

[IsaacNewton]

It never was intended to end poverty. It was another way for dems to keep their voters in perpetual generational poverty and keep the votes rolling in. Dems could care less about anyone's welfare.

Can you "end" poverty?

We have spent trillions on a war machine and it hasn't ended war

Yes, "you can end poverty". Wars will never end. They'll continue to increase.

How do you "end poverty"? In fact, how do you even DEFINE poverty, when it shifts relative to the society and standard of living around it? I mean, we talk about "poverty" in the United States, but compared to countries less advanced, with lower standards of living, our poverty is comparable to their middle or even upper class?

I think you hit on it. Its a relevant term and compared to other countries that arent as fortunate as we are, I believe we can stop it. That doesn't mean there arent going to be dirt poor people but as a whole, poverty can be severely dented. Poverty has greatly increased under this president and its a travesty.

Correct. Liberals have really boxed themselves in on this topic. On one hand, they tell us how great the economy is under DumBama and how all these jobs were created. On the other hand, they tell us how badly people need to be on these social programs because they are unfortunate. Which is it?

Well......the only reason you have all these people on social programs in a great economy is because the Democrats want them there. It's the only explanation that makes any sense.

A ridiculous meme that permeates con-talk-radio. Which is really nothing but the daily meme marching orders clearing house. Conservatives get daily affirmations on how noble selfishness is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Can you "end" poverty?

We have spent trillions on a war machine and it hasn't ended war

Yes, "you can end poverty". Wars will never end. They'll continue to increase.

How do you "end poverty"? In fact, how do you even DEFINE poverty, when it shifts relative to the society and standard of living around it? I mean, we talk about "poverty" in the United States, but compared to countries less advanced, with lower standards of living, our poverty is comparable to their middle or even upper class?

I think you hit on it. Its a relevant term and compared to other countries that arent as fortunate as we are, I believe we can stop it. That doesn't mean there arent going to be dirt poor people but as a whole, poverty can be severely dented. Poverty has greatly increased under this president and its a travesty.

Correct. Liberals have really boxed themselves in on this topic. On one hand, they tell us how great the economy is under DumBama and how all these jobs were created. On the other hand, they tell us how badly people need to be on these social programs because they are unfortunate. Which is it?

Well......the only reason you have all these people on social programs in a great economy is because the Democrats want them there. It's the only explanation that makes any sense.

A ridiculous meme that permeates con-talk-radio. Which is really nothing but the daily meme marching orders clearing house. Conservatives get daily affirmations on how noble selfishness is.

Oh please. Every time you people start with that Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox nonsense, we know you've reached the bottom of the barrel.

If anybody takes marching orders, it's Democrats. But because Democrat talk shows have failed miserably, they have nobody to pull their strings but Democrat politicians, and that's exactly where the Talk Radio nonsense started.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yes, "you can end poverty". Wars will never end. They'll continue to increase.

How do you "end poverty"? In fact, how do you even DEFINE poverty, when it shifts relative to the society and standard of living around it? I mean, we talk about "poverty" in the United States, but compared to countries less advanced, with lower standards of living, our poverty is comparable to their middle or even upper class?

I think you hit on it. Its a relevant term and compared to other countries that arent as fortunate as we are, I believe we can stop it. That doesn't mean there arent going to be dirt poor people but as a whole, poverty can be severely dented. Poverty has greatly increased under this president and its a travesty.

Correct. Liberals have really boxed themselves in on this topic. On one hand, they tell us how great the economy is under DumBama and how all these jobs were created. On the other hand, they tell us how badly people need to be on these social programs because they are unfortunate. Which is it?

Well......the only reason you have all these people on social programs in a great economy is because the Democrats want them there. It's the only explanation that makes any sense.

A ridiculous meme that permeates con-talk-radio. Which is really nothing but the daily meme marching orders clearing house. Conservatives get daily affirmations on how noble selfishness is.

Oh please. Every time you people start with that Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox nonsense, we know you've reached the bottom of the barrel.

If anybody takes marching orders, it's Democrats. But because Democrat talk shows have failed miserably, they have nobody to pull their strings but Democrat politicians, and that's exactly where the Talk Radio nonsense started.

No one except cons care about 'talk-radio' because they are the only group that needs someone whispering in their ear what they need to believe every day. And most people do their best to ignore politicians, all politicians.

But con-talk-radio makes their listeners believe politics is all important and that everything needs to be viewed through that looking glass. It's propaganda of course, but it is presented as some old friendly guy just talking to you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How do you "end poverty"? In fact, how do you even DEFINE poverty, when it shifts relative to the society and standard of living around it? I mean, we talk about "poverty" in the United States, but compared to countries less advanced, with lower standards of living, our poverty is comparable to their middle or even upper class?

I think you hit on it. Its a relevant term and compared to other countries that arent as fortunate as we are, I believe we can stop it. That doesn't mean there arent going to be dirt poor people but as a whole, poverty can be severely dented. Poverty has greatly increased under this president and its a travesty.

Correct. Liberals have really boxed themselves in on this topic. On one hand, they tell us how great the economy is under DumBama and how all these jobs were created. On the other hand, they tell us how badly people need to be on these social programs because they are unfortunate. Which is it?

Well......the only reason you have all these people on social programs in a great economy is because the Democrats want them there. It's the only explanation that makes any sense.

A ridiculous meme that permeates con-talk-radio. Which is really nothing but the daily meme marching orders clearing house. Conservatives get daily affirmations on how noble selfishness is.

Oh please. Every time you people start with that Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox nonsense, we know you've reached the bottom of the barrel.

If anybody takes marching orders, it's Democrats. But because Democrat talk shows have failed miserably, they have nobody to pull their strings but Democrat politicians, and that's exactly where the Talk Radio nonsense started.

No one except cons care about 'talk-radio' because they are the only group that needs someone whispering in their ear what they need to believe every day. And most people do their best to ignore politicians, all politicians.

But con-talk-radio makes their listeners believe politics is all important and that everything needs to be viewed through that looking glass. It's propaganda of course, but it is presented as some old friendly guy just talking to you.

So what's the difference between discussing politics on a blog or listening to talk radio?

Politics is important--very important and if more people followed politics, we would be able to get these politicians under control.

The real reason Democrat politicians hate talk radio and brainwash their sheep into repeating their fear is that they don't like the other side of the story being told. They like the good ole days--five people talking and all saying the same thing.

Well those days are long gone, and regardless of what Democrat politicians tell you to think, there is a lot of truth out there on those radio shows that you don't want to hear.

 

[Staidhup]

The war on poverty was designed to end poverty, the extension, public housing, head start, numerous federal programs to break the cycle have failed.......but the fact remains, generational poverty will remain a phenomenon until the family unit is held accountable and parent(s) assume the responsibility required to raise a child. Now they and the community ignore their responsibility and expect the government to do their job for them. Look into the backgrounds of those that broke the cycle and see what measures parent (s) employed to push children beyond their environment. The problem as I see it is the community in general frowns on those that aspire to overcome, just can't stand those that aspire for a better life.