Why Do Republicans Pretend the War On Poverty was supposed to END POVERTY?

[ClosedCaption]

In another thread on poverty republicans or conservatives kept saying that the war on poverty "hasnt worked".

When asked what they thought the goal of the war on poverty was many stated the usual "Liberals said..." followed by impossible things never said by anyone.

Of course if you believe the war on poverty was supposed to make everyone rich, I have bad news for you.


If you believed the war on poverty was supposed to end poor people existing, no wonder you think it "failed"

If you thought that the war on poverty meant everyone would live like Mr Burns from the Simpsons, I understand your frustration.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Conservatives view everything as either/or. They have a lot of trouble seeing the complexities of life. There is no human endeavor that has ever been 100% successful and never will. All of human effort is doing the best that can be done, and many times it is merely doing something more than nothing.

You are asking why people who see everything they don't believe in as evil to see the good in it. Their minds are forever trapped in us vs them and anything that isn't us is evil and wrong. They never fully grow up.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Tell us then, what WAS the purpose of the war ?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Tell us then, what WAS the purpose of the war ?

Great, so at least we agree that the impossible is not possible.

The purpose was to reduce poverty and create opportunity for minorities. From that other things came about like Food Stamps (not meant to end the existence of hunger) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (not meant to end ignorance)

 

[BULLDOG]

Republican rhetoric about the war on poverty isn't designed to present actual facts. It is to cherry pick the facts to present it in a poor light. They really don't care about whether it works or not, only if they can use some aspect of it to belittle the left.

 

[bucs90]

Liberals fight the war on poverty basically by making minorities into POWs of the war on poverty.

Imprison them into poverty via handouts that are just enough to survive on....but not enough to escape poverty. Bread and water. By KEEPING THEM DEPENDENT.


Liberals NEED POOR PEOPLE to keep their power. They need victims. They need a large class of people who NEED handouts.

If all our poor people became independent and unpoor....Democrats would all become unemployed.

It boggles my mind how poor people don't see this.

 

[Blackrook]

You're just mad that the war on poverty failed to accomplish its goals, and conservatives are rude enough to point it out.

 

[TNHarley]

But does it really matter?
What is the percentage of poor now, compared to when that started?

 

[bucs90]

Republican rhetoric about the war on poverty isn't designed to present actual facts. It is to cherry pick the facts to present it in a poor light. They really don't care about whether it works or not, only if they can use some aspect of it to belittle the left.

No it's not. When the left is right about something we acknowledge it.

Animal rights for example. IMO the left is more correct on this issue and I applaud you all for it. You all were also right about Iraq in 2003 (except war monger Hillary).

The rest....you guys are dead wrong.

 

[bucs90]

But does it really matter?
What is the percentage of poor now, compared to when that started?

Define "poor". Our "poor" actually live by an incredibly high standard compared to the world.

America is Earth's Beverly Hills. To 95% of the world....our "poor" are just like the people in Beverly Hills who live in small apartments. You know...."poor".

 

[BULLDOG]

Liberals fight the war on poverty basically by making minorities into POWs of the war on poverty.

Imprison them into poverty via handouts that are just enough to survive on....but not enough to escape poverty. Bread and water. By KEEPING THEM DEPENDENT.


Liberals NEED POOR PEOPLE to keep their power. They need victims. They need a large class of people who NEED handouts.

If all our poor people became independent and unpoor....Democrats would all become unemployed.

It boggles my mind how poor people don't see this.

Well, you've got the right wing talking points down pretty good. That doesn't help you understand the facts very well, though.

 

[BULLDOG]

But does it really matter?
What is the percentage of poor now, compared to when that started?

Define "poor". Our "poor" actually live by an incredibly high standard compared to the world.

America is Earth's Beverly Hills. To 95% of the world....our "poor" are just like the people in Beverly Hills who live in small apartments. You know...."poor".

Make up your mind. Are you now saying the war on poverty works after all?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Tell us then, what WAS the purpose of the war ?

Great, so at least we agree that the impossible is not possible.

The purpose was to reduce poverty and create opportunity for minorities. From that other things came about like Food Stamps (not meant to end the existence of hunger) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (not meant to end ignorance)

So, in your mind the "war on poverty" was meant to reduce poverty and to create opportunities for minorities. Do you believe it has done either of those things?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Tell us then, what WAS the purpose of the war ?

Great, so at least we agree that the impossible is not possible.

The purpose was to reduce poverty and create opportunity for minorities. From that other things came about like Food Stamps (not meant to end the existence of hunger) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (not meant to end ignorance)

So, in your mind the "war on poverty" was meant to reduce poverty and to create opportunities for minorities. Do you believe it has done either of those things?

Not in my mind its a statement of fact. Yes I think if those things werent available then we'd be in worse shape. I understand thats looking at an alternate present that cant be predicted so

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Tell us then, what WAS the purpose of the war ?

Great, so at least we agree that the impossible is not possible.

The purpose was to reduce poverty and create opportunity for minorities. From that other things came about like Food Stamps (not meant to end the existence of hunger) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (not meant to end ignorance)

So, in your mind the "war on poverty" was meant to reduce poverty and to create opportunities for minorities. Do you believe it has done either of those things?

Not in my mind its a statement of fact. Yes I think if those things werent available then we'd be in worse shape. I understand thats looking at an alternate present that cant be predicted so

I may not have asked the right question. Do you believe that the so called war on poverty was the BEST possible solution for the problems you believe it has helped ?

I mean obviously killing all the poor people would also decrease poverty, but I don't think anyone would call that a good solution.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Tell us then, what WAS the purpose of the war ?

Great, so at least we agree that the impossible is not possible.

The purpose was to reduce poverty and create opportunity for minorities. From that other things came about like Food Stamps (not meant to end the existence of hunger) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (not meant to end ignorance)

So, in your mind the "war on poverty" was meant to reduce poverty and to create opportunities for minorities. Do you believe it has done either of those things?

Not in my mind its a statement of fact. Yes I think if those things werent available then we'd be in worse shape. I understand thats looking at an alternate present that cant be predicted so

I may not have asked the right question. Do you believe that the so called war on poverty was the BEST possible solution for the problems you believe it has helped ?

I dont believe there is a BEST of anything to be honest. I imagine there might be other plans that could've been better, thats always possible. But saying that somewhere something better exists doesnt mean that what you have is a failure. Thats a pretty low bar for failure.

I mean obviously killing all the poor people would also decrease poverty, but I don't think anyone would call that a good solution.

 

[Claudette]

The war on poverty was a disaster.

All it did was make the taxpayers, the producers, responsible for the poor.

The poor will never get off Welfare. Why should they? Someone else is paying their bills, putting food on their table and taking care of their medical needs. Its costs them nothing so they have no reason to go to work and take care of themselves.

The war on poverty is an entitlement hung around the necks of the taxpayers. It was a catastrophic failure.

 

[WillowTree]

Tell us then, what WAS the purpose of the war ?

Great, so at least we agree that the impossible is not possible.

The purpose was to reduce poverty and create opportunity for minorities. From that other things came about like Food Stamps (not meant to end the existence of hunger) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (not meant to end ignorance)

All the money spent on poverty yields the same, if not more poverty. While fighting your war on poverty you have infiltrated society with millions more of the impoverished uneducated from other countries then whine that American kids go to bed hungry, you try to shame Republicans for the chaos you liberals have created. Yeah! That makes sense.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Tell us then, what WAS the purpose of the war ?

Great, so at least we agree that the impossible is not possible.

The purpose was to reduce poverty and create opportunity for minorities. From that other things came about like Food Stamps (not meant to end the existence of hunger) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (not meant to end ignorance)

So, in your mind the "war on poverty" was meant to reduce poverty and to create opportunities for minorities. Do you believe it has done either of those things?

Not in my mind its a statement of fact. Yes I think if those things werent available then we'd be in worse shape. I understand thats looking at an alternate present that cant be predicted so

I may not have asked the right question. Do you believe that the so called war on poverty was the BEST possible solution for the problems you believe it has helped ?

I dont believe there is a BEST of anything to be honest. I imagine there might be other plans that could've been better, thats always possible. But saying that somewhere something better exists doesnt mean that what you have is a failure. Thats a pretty low bar for failure.

I mean obviously killing all the poor people would also decrease poverty, but I don't think anyone would call that a good solution.

I don't believe there is a best for most situations either, but I do believe there are BETTER solutions. And the war on poverty has set a pretty damn low bar for actually helping people.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Great, so at least we agree that the impossible is not possible.

The purpose was to reduce poverty and create opportunity for minorities. From that other things came about like Food Stamps (not meant to end the existence of hunger) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (not meant to end ignorance)

So, in your mind the "war on poverty" was meant to reduce poverty and to create opportunities for minorities. Do you believe it has done either of those things?

Not in my mind its a statement of fact. Yes I think if those things werent available then we'd be in worse shape. I understand thats looking at an alternate present that cant be predicted so

I may not have asked the right question. Do you believe that the so called war on poverty was the BEST possible solution for the problems you believe it has helped ?

I dont believe there is a BEST of anything to be honest. I imagine there might be other plans that could've been better, thats always possible. But saying that somewhere something better exists doesnt mean that what you have is a failure. Thats a pretty low bar for failure.

I mean obviously killing all the poor people would also decrease poverty, but I don't think anyone would call that a good solution.

I don't believe there is a best for most situations either, but I do believe there are BETTER solutions. And the war on poverty has set a pretty damn low bar for actually helping people.

There might be better solutions but no one is presenting them for consideration