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

[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)

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about but its curious that Republicans have been helpless to change anything, for the better, over 60 years.

 

[IsaacNewton]

And what are the results of the 'War On Christmas'? Does Santa have a job yet? Will Starbucks use green cups next season? And for Rudolph, is there really 'always, tomorrow'?

And what will Bile O'rudely do if the War on Christmas turns out to be one of his long-winded lies? Will he yell and scream at some stage hand so he feels better?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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

Actually there was a thread in the clean debate zone that offered several alternative solutions that would probably be better than what we have now.

I would submit to you that neither side actually wants solutions that help more people. Conservatives b/c let's face it many conservatives are just selfish assholes. And liberals , because let's face it many liberals are just power hungry fools who only offer lip service to those who's votes they are after.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

And what are the results of the 'War On Christmas'? Does Santa have a job yet? Will Starbucks use green cups next season? And for Rudolph, is there really 'always, tomorrow'?

And what will Bile O'rudely do if the War on Christmas turns out to be one of his long-winded lies? Will he yell and scream at some stage hand so he feels better?

None of that is relevant to this thread so take your bullshit elsewhere child.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Actually there was a thread in the clean debate zone that offered several alternative solutions that would probably be better than what we have now.

Yeah, there are always ideas everywhere. The problem is that no one is writing those ideas down with a plan for implementation.

I would submit to you that neither side actually wants solutions that help more people. Conservatives b/c let's face it many conservatives are just selfish assholes. And liberals , because let's face it many liberals are just power hungry fools who only offer lip service to those who's votes they are after.

I wouldnt agree with that. One side has actions they've taken whether you like or agree with them or not. The other has provided Peanut Gallery objections for 60 years without presenting their own plan

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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

Actually there was a thread in the clean debate zone that offered several alternative solutions that would probably be better than what we have now.

Yeah, there are always ideas everywhere. The problem is that no one is writing those ideas down with a plan for implementation.

I would submit to you that neither side actually wants solutions that help more people. Conservatives b/c let's face it many conservatives are just selfish assholes. And liberals , because let's face it many liberals are just power hungry fools who only offer lip service to those who's votes they are after.

I wouldnt agree with that. One side has actions they've taken whether you like or agree with them or not. The other has provided Peanut Gallery objections for 60 years without presenting their own plan

If you're going to get all partisan on me, I'm going to bow out of the conversation my friend. I'm frankly tired and bored of that BS.

The liberal "solution" is to just throw more money at problems. Well, it's pretty clear by now that simply having the government throw money at problems will never solve anything, and the Dems knows that just as well as I do, and yet they continue to do so because they really don't care to solve the problem.

If liberals actually cared about helping poor people they would be doing things like educating people not to have kids they can't afford, or not to be out buying IPhones and flat screen TVs when they need food stamps to eat , and they would be encouraging them to learn new trades, move if they need to to better themselves. Anything other than just sending them a direct deposit and telling them that they can't help their own situation AT ALL.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yeah....no. It failed because poverty stayed the same or higher.......a success would have lowered poverty...permanently....and it hasn't done that...what it has done is create more people enslaved to democrat government programs.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

No......Iraq 2003 was made "Right" because we had a 5th column of democrats fighting the war effort every step of the way.....had they not pushed us out of Iraq early, fought to restrict every action.....Iraq would still be stable if not on it's way to a vast improvement....

 

[2aguy]

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....no cherry picking needed.......we just have to point out the actual facts.....that pretty much does the trick...

 

[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.

No....no cherry picking needed.......we just have to point out the actual facts.....that pretty much does the trick...

You redefined the purpose for the war on poverty. It was never intended to end poverty for all people forever, but only as an effort to help lift as many people as possible out of poverty. . Even a jelly brain like you should know that.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Poor closed caption got his feelings hurt, the war was a total failure and people STILL vote against their pocket book by voting for democrats .

.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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 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

Actually there was a thread in the clean debate zone that offered several alternative solutions that would probably be better than what we have now.

Yeah, there are always ideas everywhere. The problem is that no one is writing those ideas down with a plan for implementation.

I would submit to you that neither side actually wants solutions that help more people. Conservatives b/c let's face it many conservatives are just selfish assholes. And liberals , because let's face it many liberals are just power hungry fools who only offer lip service to those who's votes they are after.

I wouldnt agree with that. One side has actions they've taken whether you like or agree with them or not. The other has provided Peanut Gallery objections for 60 years without presenting their own plan

If you're going to get all partisan on me, I'm going to bow out of the conversation my friend. I'm frankly tired and bored of that BS.

The liberal "solution" is to just throw more money at problems. Well, it's pretty clear by now that simply having the government throw money at problems will never solve anything, and the Dems knows that just as well as I do, and yet they continue to do so because they really don't care to solve the problem.

If liberals actually cared about helping poor people they would be doing things like educating people not to have kids they can't afford, or not to be out buying IPhones and flat screen TVs when they need food stamps to eat , and they would be encouraging them to learn new trades, move if they need to to better themselves. Anything other than just sending them a direct deposit and telling them that they can't help their own situation AT ALL.

I agree, if the War on Poverty included anything that stated "throw money at a problem" I would also disagree. But thats a pretty simple minded characterization of what the legislation does.

 

[PredFan]

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.

No I didn't YOU made that up completely.

 

[Defiant1]

The solution is simple: give every person over the age of 18 one million dollars.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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

Actually there was a thread in the clean debate zone that offered several alternative solutions that would probably be better than what we have now.

Yeah, there are always ideas everywhere. The problem is that no one is writing those ideas down with a plan for implementation.

I would submit to you that neither side actually wants solutions that help more people. Conservatives b/c let's face it many conservatives are just selfish assholes. And liberals , because let's face it many liberals are just power hungry fools who only offer lip service to those who's votes they are after.

I wouldnt agree with that. One side has actions they've taken whether you like or agree with them or not. The other has provided Peanut Gallery objections for 60 years without presenting their own plan

If you're going to get all partisan on me, I'm going to bow out of the conversation my friend. I'm frankly tired and bored of that BS.

The liberal "solution" is to just throw more money at problems. Well, it's pretty clear by now that simply having the government throw money at problems will never solve anything, and the Dems knows that just as well as I do, and yet they continue to do so because they really don't care to solve the problem.

If liberals actually cared about helping poor people they would be doing things like educating people not to have kids they can't afford, or not to be out buying IPhones and flat screen TVs when they need food stamps to eat , and they would be encouraging them to learn new trades, move if they need to to better themselves. Anything other than just sending them a direct deposit and telling them that they can't help their own situation AT ALL.

I agree, if the War on Poverty included anything that stated "throw money at a problem" I would also disagree. But thats a pretty simple minded characterization of what the legislation does.

Name three things that have came out of the war on poverty that involve more than simply throwing money at a problem.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Step one should have been to discourage manufacturing from going overseas and instead move those plants to poor American cities.

At least now both candidates are saying the right things when it comes to this. But we all know which party will fight bring jobs back home.

What's your senator or rep saying about this?

 

[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.

I have no idea what you're talking about but its curious that Republicans have been helpless to change anything, for the better, over 60 years.

It is perfectly understandable that you suddenly became incapable of comprehension when you hear truth spoken.

 

[WillowTree]

And what are the results of the 'War On Christmas'? Does Santa have a job yet? Will Starbucks use green cups next season? And for Rudolph, is there really 'always, tomorrow'?

And what will Bile O'rudely do if the War on Christmas turns out to be one of his long-winded lies? Will he yell and scream at some stage hand so he feels better?

Moron.

 

[Arianrhod]

And what are the results of the 'War On Christmas'? Does Santa have a job yet? Will Starbucks use green cups next season? And for Rudolph, is there really 'always, tomorrow'?

And what will Bile O'rudely do if the War on Christmas turns out to be one of his long-winded lies? Will he yell and scream at some stage hand so he feels better?

Moron.

You've completed Step 1 - good for you!

Now you can address the OP with some practical solutions to the problem of poverty in America, or at least an explanation for why manufacturers were given carte blanche to ship jobs overseas, or why our infrastructure is crumbling, or...

And, go.

 

[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.

No I didn't YOU made that up completely.

Throw a rock and the hit dog will holler