If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   From the Department of Money Well Spent: After almost 50 years and untold trillions of dollars, the US poverty level is the same as it was when war was declared   (cnsnews.com) divider line 413
    More: Obvious, poverty line, President Johnson, Earned Income Tax Credit  
•       •       •

1405 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2012 at 12:22 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



413 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-26 11:08:30 AM
Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.
 
2012-06-26 11:11:43 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.


No no no... we need to invade Iran.
 
2012-06-26 11:12:07 AM
FTA: Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected

Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.
 
2012-06-26 11:19:55 AM

Cythraul: Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.


One of the stated objectives of The Great Society was the elimination of poverty.
 
2012-06-26 11:22:48 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.

One of the stated objectives of The Great Society was the elimination of poverty.


So, let's eliminate welfare? Sounds good to me.
 
2012-06-26 11:23:27 AM
The War on Poverty is to Afganistan as the War on Drugs is to Iraq.
 
2012-06-26 11:23:32 AM
The federal government is not making much headway reducing poverty despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars, according to a study by the libertarian Cato Institute.

Libertarians give a sh*t about poverty? News to me.


Amazing how the geniuses at the Cato Institute don't seem to mention that with the increases in welfare spending, the actual poverty rate hasn't increased much, despite at least three recessions and one total meltdown of the US economy happening since 1965.

It's almost as if the extra money was helpful in not seeing poverty rates increase further.

Nah, that's crazy talk.
 
2012-06-26 11:31:14 AM

Cythraul: So, let's eliminate welfare? Sounds good to me.


Staying the course for another 50 years should do the trick!
 
2012-06-26 11:32:18 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: So, let's eliminate welfare? Sounds good to me.

Staying the course for another 50 years should do the trick!


Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.
 
2012-06-26 11:36:59 AM
I don't care, I support welfare for farmers. I mean subsidies for agriculture.
 
2012-06-26 11:37:04 AM

Cythraul: Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.


I thought the goal was to eliminate poverty altogether.
 
2012-06-26 11:39:17 AM

Aarontology: I don't care, I support welfare for farmers. I mean subsidies for agriculture.


Nah. In fact how about we trash the entire Farm Bill currently working it's way through congress?
 
2012-06-26 11:40:05 AM
Can't we just give them cake?
 
2012-06-26 11:43:16 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.

I thought the goal was to eliminate poverty altogether.


I never said that. One could argue it is an effort to reduce poverty. Or to reduce the impact of being poor has on one's life. But to eliminate poverty all together seems like an unrealistic goal.

But if it's 'not working,' by all means, get rid of the program. As a liberal, I want to see welfare eliminated. Get rid of all of the 'entitlements.' Everything from Medicare, to Pell Grants to Food Stamps. I seriously would like to sit back and laugh when the shiat hits the fan after.
 
2012-06-26 11:44:44 AM
A study by the Cato Institute interpreted on CNS News as demonstrating that poverty is too comfortable. That's one of the funniest things I've read today.

Make sure you donate some cash to CNS News, though. They're not funded by the government like NPR and PBS and need your help.
 
2012-06-26 11:44:55 AM
As with all economic discussions in America we have the people who want to help arguing about how and a vocal section of the populace determined that we shouldn't/can't help at all. And then every couple of years the people in charge change and the method shifts along with them.
 
2012-06-26 11:45:46 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Aarontology: I don't care, I support welfare for farmers. I mean subsidies for agriculture.

Nah. In fact how about we trash the entire Farm Bill currently working it's way through congress?


Not gonna happen. Neither party ever really opposes a Farm Bill.

The food those food stamps will pay for have to come from somewhere. So not only do the welfare farmers aren't liable for losses thanks to the insurance subsidy, they get guaranteed income due to suppliers purchasing food to resell to the people on food stamps.

Of course, there will be the ignorant teabaggers who scream bloody murder about lazy people on food stamps while wining about how farms don't enough help without realizing that people who buy food have to, you know, have someone to grow it in the first place.

Besides, food security is national security.
 
2012-06-26 11:47:28 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.

No no no... we need to invade Iran.


wait, if we arm the poor and have THEM invade Iran, we can take care of two problems at once!
 
2012-06-26 11:47:40 AM
But the really ironic thing, and the funniest in my opinion, is that the teabaggers and republicans are complaining that there isn't enough socialism and redistribution of wealth in the Farm Bill in regards to "help" for farmers.
 
2012-06-26 11:49:52 AM
"Untold trillions"?

Someone's come unglued from reality.
 
2012-06-26 11:59:20 AM

ToxicMunkee: Can't we just give them cake?


Good idea. Cake or Death.
 
2012-06-26 12:02:19 PM

Cythraul: Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: So, let's eliminate welfare? Sounds good to me.

Staying the course for another 50 years should do the trick!

Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.


Well, that's the real purpose. Like anything else, the purpose of social programs is social stability and protecting the moneyed classes from the wrath of the poor.

Keep them poor.... but with just enough material comfort to keep them from rising up.

But hey, if we collectively decide to get rid of that safety net that's fine with me. Let it all burn. Maybe we'll learn something we forgot about the importance of the social contract.
 
2012-06-26 12:03:56 PM
Right, because logically, the amount of money people are given on welfare is enough to jump start their money piles. Because welfare is obviously designed to be invested in government bonds and was never designed to pay for rent and food.
 
2012-06-26 12:04:34 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.
 
2012-06-26 12:08:51 PM
So make the poor f*ckers pee in a cup and demonstrate one of the other social wars we have lost miserably?
 
2012-06-26 12:11:28 PM
corporate welfare is awesome. personal welfare is bad. this is what republicans truly believe.
 
2012-06-26 12:12:38 PM

vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.


Hehe, the 1% in 1971 were those who owned microwaves.
 
2012-06-26 12:12:58 PM

Cythraul: I never said that.


Yeah, ok.

Cythraul: So, let's eliminate welfare? Sounds good to me



Cythraul: One could argue it is an effort to reduce poverty.


Or that one of the actual stated goals of the Great Society was the elimination of poverty.

Aarontology: Neither party ever really opposes a Farm Bill.


Sadly.

Aarontology: The food those food stamps will pay for have to come from somewhere.


So why not a "Food Stamp Bill"? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and all...

Aarontology: So not only do the welfare farmers aren't liable for losses thanks to the insurance subsidy


A Mongolian clusterfark no matter how you slices it. Just goes to show that dependency knows no boundaries.

gilgigamesh: Keep them poor.... but with just enough material comfort to keep them from rising up.


Or wanting out?
 
2012-06-26 12:19:17 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: So why not a "Food Stamp Bill"? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and all...


Congress likes giving... unique names to bills.

Dancin_In_Anson: A Mongolian clusterfark no matter how you slices it. Just goes to show that dependency knows no boundaries.


That's less dependency and more "if there's a catastrophe of some sort, the American agricultural industry won't completely die' as well as "keeping food prices at a certain level so they aren't nearly as affected by swings in commodities prices as we see in other countries, as well as making sure our farmers are competitive against foreign farmers who receive massive subsidies from their governments"

I know it sounds great to be all bootstrappy, but the agricultural industry is far too important to be completely left up to the whims of the market. There are reasons America doesn't have food riots, and why it's better to have a domestic farming industry instead of being completely dependent upon foreign imports for our food and the national security risks inherent in such a system. Which is exactly what would happen with the elimination of farming subsidies of all sorts.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-26 12:22:19 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.

One of the stated objectives of The Great Society was the elimination of poverty.


Yes, and every administration and Congress since Johnson has been totally dedicated to that goal.
 
2012-06-26 12:24:43 PM
Capitalism demands an underclass.
 
2012-06-26 12:25:00 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.

One of the stated objectives of The Great Society was the elimination of poverty.


Your problem's the wording. Conservatives read this and have thought since they meant the elimination of poor people.
 
2012-06-26 12:25:29 PM
I'm mildly curious what the poverty rate would be without all of the social programs.

I think it's stemming the tide rather than making gains given the relative success of the GOP to cater to the wealthy and implement ridiculously dysfunctional economic models and constant revenue slashing.
 
2012-06-26 12:26:10 PM
I'm glad DIA got the stupid going early for this thread. Let's watch the constant changes in topic, refusal to answer any tough question, and demands to cite every little thing while he refuses to cite anything himself.
 
2012-06-26 12:26:27 PM

FlashHarry: corporate welfare is awesome. personal welfare is bad. this is what republicans truly believe.


And its been thus since at least the days of Herbert Hoover, who steadfastly
refused to give individual relief to those displaced in the early days of The
Great Depression.
 
2012-06-26 12:26:56 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.

No no no... we need to invade Iran.


Why not both?
 
2012-06-26 12:27:04 PM
We misunderstood the assignment and waged war on impoverished nations instead. Our bad.
 
2012-06-26 12:27:46 PM

vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.


ok then, we've eliminated poverty. Time to shut down the programs.
 
2012-06-26 12:28:08 PM

Aar1012: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.

No no no... we need to invade Iran.

Why not both?


Now there's something everyone can enjoy.
 
2012-06-26 12:28:14 PM
So let's see.....

Unemployment 1965 - ranged between 4.0% and 5.1%

Current unemployment rate - 8.2%

So the poverty rate now is roughly the same as it was in 1965, when economic conditions were significantly better.

This is a failure in what way?
 
2012-06-26 12:29:03 PM

vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.


I seriously doubt the numbers on this chart. I really doubt 98.5 percent of poor people own refrigerators. They probably have one in their apartment that is provided by the landlord but they certainly do not "own" one.

I'm definitely not poor but I have never in my life owned a microwave oven. Every place I have ever rented had one but I didn't own it.

\I will soon be purchasing the first microwave in my 32 years of life.
\\New homeowner
 
2012-06-26 12:30:18 PM

Nuclear Monk: We misunderstood the assignment and waged war on impoverished nations instead. Our bad.


Oh OUR poverty. Haha... my bad.
 
2012-06-26 12:30:20 PM
It's hard to eliminate poverty when every single policy enacted over forty years has increased it.

Let's start with enacting a maximum wage, followed by a meaningful minimum wage. Let's move on to destroying the profit motive in food production, then health care, then real estate.

And if the rich don't like it, fark 'em. There's always Macau.
 
2012-06-26 12:30:50 PM

vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.


I like the fact that they have WORKING VEHICLES; sometimes TWO?!

Wow, its almost like they HAVE to have transportation to live at all. And of course you can't fit into a quick chart the fact that these poor folks are paying through the goddamn nose for shiatty 10 year old cars they had to take out a loan to purchase.
 
2012-06-26 12:31:45 PM

vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.


Yeah, but the percentage of 'poor' people who own freezers and telephones is lower.
 
2012-06-26 12:32:28 PM

mat catastrophe: It's hard to eliminate poverty when every single policy enacted over forty years has increased it.

Let's start with enacting a maximum wage, followed by a meaningful minimum wage. Let's move on to destroying the profit motive in food production, then health care, then real estate.

And if the rich don't like it, fark 'em. There's always Macau.


Now that is straight up Marxism. Take note.
 
2012-06-26 12:33:11 PM
Far more money was spent on free enterprise.

But we're still supposed to believe that reduces poverty.
 
2012-06-26 12:33:19 PM
You know what stimulates the economy?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-26 12:33:28 PM
Feed the homeless to the hungry. Problem solved.
 
2012-06-26 12:34:03 PM
Since poverty has not been completely eliminated....let's get rid of welfare? Well, that sounds brilliant. Why didn't anyone think of that before?

In other news, since there are still drug addicts even though the war on drugs has been around for 30 years, let's start force feeding kids heroin in school lunches.
 
Displayed 50 of 413 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report