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 63
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-26 11:12:07 AM
6 votes:
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 11:23:32 AM
5 votes:
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 02:56:29 PM
4 votes:

keylock71: Don't certain folks round here like to crow about how "well off" the poor in America are compared to the poor in the rest of the world?


Which I would think we should be proud of. Our poor should live like goddamn kings compared to the richest motherf*cker anywhere else in the world. And we should be striving to ensure they live like goddamn space kings of superplanet badass compared to everyone else. Because we're America and we're supposed to be the sh*t. I don't want to hear "oh, the poor have the most basic communication tools and they can keep their food cold so it's good enough." I want the poor in my country to be better off than anyone else in the world, because I want my country to be that awesome.

You could call me a patriot if you ignore the fact my car has no yellow ribbon bumper stickers.
2012-06-26 12:33:19 PM
4 votes:
You know what stimulates the economy?

i.imgur.com
2012-06-26 12:24:43 PM
4 votes:
Capitalism demands an underclass.
2012-06-26 08:41:30 PM
3 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: nor the Wiki you cited disproves that the CBPP is non-partisan

All their donors are leftists. Try again.

You really suck at this.

No, you merely refuse to believe anything except that you & everything you believe are correct. You've managed to bully most of the conservatives into leaving FARK altogether, or simply avoiding you clowns, because you cite left-leaning shills like the CBPP as solemn fact and deride anyone who shows facts to the contrary as trolls, derp, wharrgarbl, etc. You claim that your sources are unbiased and that anyone who disagrees is a liar, an evil person, etc. Then, when hyou get challenged, you accuse the challenger of being "angry." You have no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and attempt to hide this with insults and smugness. I know it plays very well in this little echo chamber of yours, but it's bullshiat.


Most of the "conservatives" on here have been chased away because they spout easily debunked pablum like you. You're full of nothing but boilerplate nonsense fed to you by Fox and Beck and Townhall and all of the other various righty propaganda delivery devices. You have done nothing to prove any of the ridiculous assertions you have made since showing up on here a few days ago after allegedly lurking for ten years.

People that have been around here for a while can sniff out obvious sock puppets like you from a mile away. You're not the first, the last, and you are certainly not even close to the best of the puke-spewers that have shown up here over the last five years or so.

Feel free to go peddle your nonsense to a more receptive audience. Nobody here is buying your tired old Fark independent act, and you shouldn't be selling it.
2012-06-26 03:06:35 PM
3 votes:

Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery


Not sure if serious, but here's a primer.

Consumption of any kind drives demand which creates jobs. So there's nothing wrong economically with the poor using their money for beer, smokes, Hyundais, Taco Bell, or hookers. It's as valuable as buying jewelry, vacuum cleaners, or your wife a facelift. It all creates demand for labor.

Just having a money supply doesn't create any demand. Investment itself cannot create jobs because there is no need for supply to be created without a demand. Investment is an efficient way to mobilize supply to meed demand. It cannot create supply (jobs) in the absence of demand (poor people buying smokes, beer, and lotto tickets).
2012-06-26 12:51:29 PM
3 votes:
In other news, despite repeated attempts by liberals to improve childhood education, 50% of all students still test below average.
2012-06-26 11:08:30 AM
3 votes:
Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.
2012-06-26 02:42:49 PM
2 votes:

FilmBELOH20: Rich people are crazy and always buy frivolous shiat like that. My father-in-law used his money to buy John Deere tractor after John Deere tractor. Crazy bastard just couldn't get enough of those tractors! Can you imagine? Being so rich that all you do is buy tractors and buildings? Hell, at one point he had to pay well over 100 people to do maintenance on them. He had so many tractors that he decided to sell them, and he ended up paying people to do that for him because he got so lazy! Then it was sort of like a "business" so much that he had to hire office workers and accountants and lawyers and all kinds of crap! What all rich people do with their money, man... Makes me nuts!


I bet he wouldn't sell many tractors without farm welfare...errr subsidies. Does that make your father-in-law one of them thar welfare queens the city folks talk about so much?

Hell, at one point he HAD to pay well over 100 people to do maintenance on them. Thanks for admitting that he did not "create" any jobs since he HAD to hire 100 people to do the work. He took advantage of the demand and profited from it, but he didn't create a single freaking job. That demand is created through government programs. If you and your father-in-law disagree, call your congressman and tell him to end all farm subsidies today. Let's see how many of those 100 people are working in a few months.
2012-06-26 01:00:47 PM
2 votes:

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

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


we should give up fighting crime. It's not working.
2012-06-26 12:29:03 PM
2 votes:

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 12:28:14 PM
2 votes:
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 12:25:29 PM
2 votes:
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 12:02:19 PM
2 votes:

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 11:36:59 AM
2 votes:
I don't care, I support welfare for farmers. I mean subsidies for agriculture.
2012-06-26 11:32:18 AM
2 votes:

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 11:19:55 AM
2 votes:

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 07:49:35 PM
1 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: ...non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities...

Non-partisan my ass, bub.

And since you guys use Wikipedia as a source, I will too: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Donors

As I said, non-partisan, my ass.


Sorry, Mr. cite-tard. Neither the Mcardle opinion piece nor the Wiki you cited disproves that the CBPP is non-partisan. Over and above that though, neither disproves the findings of the study in question, which is the real point. Or was that just a really bad attempt at deflection?

You really suck at this.
2012-06-26 07:33:40 PM
1 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: Newsbusters? Libertariananswers.com?

Citing nonsense doesn't make your nonsense valid.

Clinton

From the PDF linked to on that Libertarian answers page:
Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.
Better?


No. That PDF is full of suppositions and convoluted math/logic to support a bullshiat theory.

It's crap. Meanwhile, the study cited upthread by the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities using actual hard numbers completely debunks that bogus libertarian POS you tried to pass off as proof of your ridiculous assertion.

Again, citing bullshiat does not help your case. You might be able to sell steaming piles like that over at Yahoo, but not here.
2012-06-26 06:53:42 PM
1 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: Gyrfalcon: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.

TANF/AFDC recipients FY 2000: 742,263 (End of Clinton Administration)

TANF recipients, FY 2007: 3,960,907 (End of Bush Administration)

Source: US Dept of Health & Human Services Link

Welfare was reformed under Clinton, and less people were on it.

4th question down.

Funny, how the left always wants to credit Clinton for welfare reform, and claim that the GOP-led Congress had nothing to do with it. Clinton signed it, but not because he wanted to do so:

Mr. Clinton also vetoed reform twice before finally signing it in 1996 after his political guru Dick Morris told him it was the one issue that could cost him re-election.


Clinton campaigned in 1992 on welfare reform.

"Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"

Link

Many people agree that "facts" increase the persuasive appeal of an argument, while "bullsh*t pulled out of your cavernous asshole" decreases it.
2012-06-26 06:26:57 PM
1 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: And the shaded area represents the end of the CARTER administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.



No, the shades show a recession, idiot.
2012-06-26 06:18:43 PM
1 votes:

Fail in Human Form: At the end of the day, poverty exists because we want it too. Simple as that.


Agreed an in addition Capitalism as we know it would look different.
Personally, I think that there is no real pure form of any system. The mix varies with different degrees of socialist ideas thrown in. Socialism and Communism in their pure form, collapse.
I see todays GOP striving for pure Capitalism. I don't see that as a good idea.
2012-06-26 06:13:48 PM
1 votes:
We have everything we need, on paper, in this country to completely eliminate poverty through legislation but two things would have to change. First, the wealthy would have to give up the idea that they can have a fleet of million dollar cars, private yachts, and a $100 million house for every day of the week. Second, the middle class has to give up the idea that the poor "don't deserve it". Change those two things and you can have your relative utopia. Personally, I'm not holding my breath given the culture we live in.

/At the end of the day, poverty exists because we want it too. Simple as that.
2012-06-26 06:07:24 PM
1 votes:
Conservative have been smart to morph the meaning of aid to the needy into one word, "Entitlement".
What's that all about? Entitlements in my mind aren't material things, they are liberty, justice and freedom. We are all entitled to those things. It's a marketing ploy to get people to start looking at safety nets as "nice to haves" and insinuating that the people that need it think they are "entitled" to what they like to call "hand outs".

Stigmatize an idea as something else to cast a shadow over it. Sound familiar?

Conservatives have this knee jerk reaction to throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead of doing the work to cut waste out of these programs without dismantling them, they take the easy way out and call it freedom and capitalism. Anybody against that must be a Socialist Marxist traitor.

Some of us see right through all of the Romney,s in the world.
We see your greed dressed up in your moral high ground.

I think it's great to be able to go out and make something of yourself and be successful and make a ton of money. But I ask, how far do the scales need to be tipped before before great wealth surpasses the progress of an enlightened society?

Is it really Just and the true American Way to turn our backs on the needy and suck the middle class dry while the uber wealthy sit back and do nothing but fight to continue the cycle?

I just don't offing get it.
2012-06-26 05:51:11 PM
1 votes:
just kick all the white people off of welfare
2012-06-26 05:38:24 PM
1 votes:

CanonicalNerd: Johnnyknox: "you just hate poor people and want them to STARVE!"

Yes, because if one is against GOVERNMENT doing a thing, then one must be against that thing altogether.

don't like the dept of education? You hate education and want people to be stupid.

don't like welfare checks? You hate poor people and want them to DIE!

how is that an argument?

When they point at someone's education as a bad thing. Or say poor people aren't poor.


If you propose dismantling public education, you don't want most people to get an education, except by charity and extreme good fortune. So yeah - you want people stupid, because you don't want most of them educated.

If you propose dismantling the social safety net, you think the suffering of people in poverty should not be alleviated, except by charity and extreme good fortune. So yeah - you want them to suffer, because help will not be provided for most of them.
2012-06-26 05:23:50 PM
1 votes:
I'm I the only one noticing there are people in this thread arguing both the war on poverty has been a dismal failure AND we have the richest poor people in the world?
2012-06-26 05:16:21 PM
1 votes:

jigger: Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.


Here is the source article, and its cited pretty well.

One thing I immediately noticed is that about 1/3 of it is Medicaid. Medicaid isn't exactly handing out money to more people. More like handing out money to poor people's doctors (and pharma and hoverround, etc).
2012-06-26 05:01:24 PM
1 votes:

FilmBELOH20:
Quick - find the chart that shows where those funds go to those states. (Hint - you can't find it)


ZZZZZTTTT!!!! http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1451268

FilmBELOH20: What they tend to forget to mention is that there are two gigantic military bases


DOUBLE ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!!!

"I begin by disentangling the effects of federal spending on the 2000 election-the election that started the controversy-by showing that social spending not defense spending is related to Republican vote share. " (from source above, pg 3)
2012-06-26 04:41:22 PM
1 votes:

derpdeederp: Any thoughts on allowing private militaries to pick up the slack for reducing the US military?


Um, don't.

There is no slack to pick up - we have overreached with our current military and what we use them for. If we'd simply use the military for defense of our country and our allies - and not to maintain an intercontinental corporate empire as we are doing now - then we could simply cut the military budget to what is appropriate and use the surplus to do crazy stuff like build adequate infrastructure in our own country.
2012-06-26 04:38:17 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.


Then why do the states who receive the most federal funds vote republican? Did their cunning plan backfire or did you just reguritate talk radio tripe without wanting to actually know the truth.
2012-06-26 04:19:14 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.


You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

You're right, Obama totally did that. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, more people are on welfare now because of Republican policies that drove them there, not because of anything Obama did other than be black on a Friday night.

So, who or what party is promising the most handouts?
2012-06-26 04:12:06 PM
1 votes:
The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.
2012-06-26 04:00:48 PM
1 votes:

derpdeederp: Epoch_Zero: Maud Dib: YoungSwedishBlonde: We've given the Pentagon trillions of dollars over the years and we still conduct wars. Ergo, we must eliminate the DoD.

/teatard logic is fun

Was just bored at work and was perusing the Boneyard at Davis Monthan. Can you just imagine how many BILLIONS are tied up in just this one scrap heap?

[militarybases.com image 480x383]

Looks to me like we should increase the military budget.

I believe the concept is to give the military money so we dont get attacked. Wars always happen, we just want it on their soil, not our own.


You mean, giving money to the military so we can go out and bomb people, and then act surprised when they retaliate and in response give even more money to the military, resulting in boneyards like the one pictured due to the waste and bloodthirst of our current military and those who lead it?

Yeah, sort of like that.
2012-06-26 03:48:27 PM
1 votes:

jjorsett: Expecting to reduce poverty simply by handing out government money is like expecting to bail out a bathtub by removing a bucketful at one end and dumping it in the other.


Expecting a simplified analogy from a conservative to make any sense is like expecting to eliminate the deficit and unemployment with more tax cuts for the rich.
2012-06-26 03:38:06 PM
1 votes:
vernonFL
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!

Just look at all those Lucky Duckies with refrigerators!

KhanAidan
We can't be averaging $1 trillion a year if we've only given 15 over the past 48 years...

Since they pulled those numbers out of their asses, we can be doing anything they say we are.

Ball Sack Obama
So is your way of solving it just throwing more taxpayer money at it?

Who suggested just throwing more money at it? We need more effective ideas, but what we don't need is to cut funding to the poor like so many in the GOP want to do.
2012-06-26 03:21:57 PM
1 votes:

bgilmore5: FilmBELOH20: Rich people are crazy and always buy frivolous shiat like that. My father-in-law used his money to buy John Deere tractor after John Deere tractor. Crazy bastard just couldn't get enough of those tractors! Can you imagine? Being so rich that all you do is buy tractors and buildings? Hell, at one point he had to pay well over 100 people to do maintenance on them. He had so many tractors that he decided to sell them, and he ended up paying people to do that for him because he got so lazy! Then it was sort of like a "business" so much that he had to hire office workers and accountants and lawyers and all kinds of crap! What all rich people do with their money, man... Makes me nuts!

I bet he wouldn't sell many tractors without farm welfare...errr subsidies. Does that make your father-in-law one of them thar welfare queens the city folks talk about so much?

Hell, at one point he HAD to pay well over 100 people to do maintenance on them. Thanks for admitting that he did not "create" any jobs since he HAD to hire 100 people to do the work. He took advantage of the demand and profited from it, but he didn't create a single freaking job. That demand is created through government programs. If you and your father-in-law disagree, call your congressman and tell him to end all farm subsidies today. Let's see how many of those 100 people are working in a few months.


Actually, he wasn't a farm implement dealer, he sold John Deere yellow brand - construction equipment.... And how do you feel one isn't creating a job if he invests his money in a new business that requires workers even if it is a farm? Smug away to your hearts content if it will make you feel better, but you're an idiot.
2012-06-26 03:07:47 PM
1 votes:
Headline: 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 were declared

3.bp.blogspot.com

/Really, I'm the first? You're slippin', Fark.
2012-06-26 02:37:15 PM
1 votes:

FilmBELOH20: Philip Francis Queeg: Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery

What working and making more money might look like.....

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x167]

[www.autospies.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x268]

[signsofcocaineuse.com image 500x334]

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x388]

Rich people are crazy and always buy frivolous shiat like that. My father-in-law used his money to buy John Deere tractor after John Deere tractor. Crazy bastard just couldn't get enough of those tractors! Can you imagine? Being so rich that all you do is buy tractors and buildings? Hell, at one point he had to pay well over 100 people to do maintenance on them. He had so many tractors that he decided to sell them, and he ended up paying people to do that for him because he got so lazy! Then it was sort of like a "business" so much that he had to hire office workers and accountants and lawyers and all kinds of crap! What all rich people do with their money, man... Makes me nuts!


Cool story bro. If rich people create jobs and rich people are the richest they have ever been, where are the farking jobs?
2012-06-26 02:31:33 PM
1 votes:

Giltric: Shvetz: You know what stimulates the economy?

[i.imgur.com image 635x389]



How much would 100% employment put back into the economy?

how do you get what you put into it, plus an extra .63 cents out of unemployment? What about food stamps? How do you get what you put into it plus an extra .74 cents out of food stamps?

Why not mandate 100% food stamp participation from the population and grow our economy by 174%?

Something tells me it doesn't work that way...why not?


Because you're taking things to an unreasonable extreme. Carrots are healthy for you, therefore you can eat nothing but carrots for the rest of your life and be perfectly healthy. See? We need to find a good middle ground. Right now, we are heavily skewed towards wealth accumulating at the very top. Pretty soon, American companies won't just outsource labor, they'll have to outsource their customers as well.

Also, if you're confused as to how food stamps generate economic stimulus in a bad economy, look up "velocity of money." If you qualify for food stamps, you probably aren't saving tons of money, waiting for the economy to get better. You're spending every dollar that comes in on basic necessities. Companies are just sitting on piles of cash, waiting for the economy to pick up so they have actual customers. Cutting their taxes won't make them hire people. Giving them customers will.
2012-06-26 02:24:16 PM
1 votes:

James!: 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.


My reaction to the right-wing incorrectly labeling the center-right Democrats as "socialists" is to actually talk like a "communist".

It's the only way. If they can stretch the conversation that far to the right so that moderate liberal policies seem leftist, then you have to show them what leftism really means.
2012-06-26 02:21:13 PM
1 votes:

Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery


And food, and gas, and pay rent, and clothes, and shoes, and they pay school fees and pay for all sorts of other things, too, when they have money. And when they don't they do without.

You have obviously never been poor. When I was a kid we were poor, mom worked 3 jobs for a while to care for us 4 kids. One year we all got a pair of gloves for christmas.

You want to know what else we had? We all had bikes, we all participated in sports, we all took the occasional vacation, and we all had personal items that were not absolutely neccessary for survival.

The difference between poor and rich in this regard is that the poor smoke American Eagle cigarettes, and occasionally can't afford to buy another pack, and the rich smoke cuban cigars. The poor drink PBR when they can have a little cash, and the rich drink 50 year old scotch. The poor buy lottery tickets because they represent hope, exactly like they're marketed to do.

And those refridgerators the poor have? They're 30 years old and have a broken crisper.

I suppose a few welfare recipients are probably content with that, but if you think most are you are stupid.
2012-06-26 01:35:42 PM
1 votes:
This makes as much sense as Captain Smith on the Titanic saying "You know what? We're running these pumps but we're still sinking. SHUT EM ALL DOWN, BOYS!"
2012-06-26 01:32:05 PM
1 votes:
To those in this thread saying the war on poverty doesn't work just wait until the next thread about social services or taxes and you will hear that poor people are living high on the hog.
2012-06-26 01:19:09 PM
1 votes:

mediaho: [www.politisink.com image 636x480]


What I find funny about the 99.6% of poor having a refrigerator is the fact that the statistic is very misleading. Because the question should have been "own" a refrigerator. I am not poor, I have never owned a refrigerator because I have always rented. Every apartment, condo, duplex, or house I have ever rented has come furnished with a refrigerator. I suspect the majority of those "poor" people don't own a refrigerator it was just there when they got there. The statistic should be 99.6% of poor people utilize a refrigerator. Generally, you have to own a home to own a refrigerator. Poor people rarely own homes.
2012-06-26 01:15:27 PM
1 votes:
FTFA: CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS. CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore.

Seems like an unbiased outfit to me. I can't imagine they would promote stories that fit their worldview of lazy poor people and out of control government spending (no mention of revenue).
2012-06-26 01:12:37 PM
1 votes:

Ball Sack Obama: qorkfiend: Ball Sack Obama: qorkfiend: Ball Sack Obama: Instead of biatching about it, go out and give poor people money. I will do the same when and where i feel like it.

It's really pretty simple.

Not a solution, since it doesn't solve the problem.

Sure it is. If more people biatched less and gave more, it would make a difference.

Using your logic, we should all stop recycling plastic because it won't really make any difference.

Nice strawman. I didn't say anything about "making a difference"; I said "it's not a solution because it doesn't solve the problem".

Likewise, voluntary recycling doesn't solve the problem.

Not a strawman, more an inference. To solve the problem, you would have to first make a difference, would you not? So is your way of solving it just throwing more taxpayer money at it?


Is your way of solving it to just hope for that people are generous enough despite the fact that people have never been generous enough in all of human history?
2012-06-26 01:00:41 PM
1 votes:

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


"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."
2012-06-26 12:59:58 PM
1 votes:

coco ebert: As long as racial and xenophobic demagoguery exists people will vote against their economic interests and sh*t will just keep getting worse. I speak as someone doing ethnographic work on these issues in the South. It's so depressing.


Can you explain or post something I can read? I'm genuinely interested.
2012-06-26 12:54:20 PM
1 votes:
tcf.org

Considering that over 50% of all government assistance goes to the 13% of the population over 65, I'd say it's had an effect.

But screw the kids...they need to work harder.
2012-06-26 12:49:10 PM
1 votes:
Apparently "it hasn't eliminated poverty" is a good enough reason to erase welfare, but "it hasn't created jobs" isn't a good enough reason to stop cutting taxes on Job CreatorsTM.

/It's not class warfare, though
//Cuz we said so
2012-06-26 12:47:33 PM
1 votes:
What is it with the US and quagmires? Wonder if it has something to do with fighting symptoms rather than addressing underlying causes? We need more competent, apolitical civil service in this country. More technocrats, please.
2012-06-26 12:46:01 PM
1 votes:
1) ZOMG!!! 99.6% OF "POOR" HOUSEHOLDS HAVE REFRIGERATORS. WE NEED TO CUT BACK WELFARE!!

2) ZOMG!!! AFTER TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF WELFARE, THE CONDITION OF THE POOR HASN'T CHANGED ONE IOTA!!! WE NEED TO CUT BACK WELFARE!!

The flaw in your argument... do you spies it?
2012-06-26 12:43:49 PM
1 votes:
Welfare is the cushion at the bottom, not the ladder up. It's not meant to eliminate poverty, just make it less shiatty.

We need a real program to eliminate it.
2012-06-26 12:41:29 PM
1 votes:
I would assume we would need to develop better education programs to prepare people for the real world instead of driving student loans and higher education to levels that only the upper middle-class can survive. We probably need to stop shipping low-level jobs overseas to give the blue collar worker opportunities that just aren't there anymore. And, we'll need to reform the health care system to prevent crushing debt that can destroy families and cripple growth.

Or, I guess, we get rid of welfare and hope for the best.
2012-06-26 12:38:53 PM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: CapitalismHumanity demands an underclass.


FTFY
2012-06-26 12:30:20 PM
1 votes:
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 11:49:52 AM
1 votes:
"Untold trillions"?

Someone's come unglued from reality.
2012-06-26 11:43:16 AM
1 votes:

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 11:40:05 AM
1 votes:
Can't we just give them cake?
2012-06-26 11:22:48 AM
1 votes:

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 11:11:43 AM
1 votes:

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


No no no... we need to invade Iran.
 
Displayed 63 of 63 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report