"No society has ever existed without disease, healthcare is silly and a waste of resources."
The War on Poverty at 50
- Thread starter Street Knowledge
- Start date
"No society has ever existed without disease, healthcare is silly and a waste of resources."
The income of an individual doesnt okay unwarranted criticism.Rich people are doing fine on their own, I don't think they need you tothem from criticism.
While there will always be greedy people, we need to have government policy to keep their behavior in check. And it's true that there will always be poor people, but that doesn't mean we can't do much better than the status quo. Right now, the rich have such a huge share of the country's wealth that it's literally a drag on the economy - when too much wealth is concentrated at the top, the poor/middle don't have enough income to buy goods/services and it hurts the economy for everybody.
Little known fact...the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% peaked in 1928 and 2007...right before each crash. I know correlation doesn't imply causation, but that's a pretty big coincidence...
I don't think we should just bend over and take it from the rich/greedy just because there will always be those types. Things such as tax policy and regulations can be used to keep things in check, at least to an extent.
Maybe if you guys were more specific, rather then making broad generalizations it would come across better, but right now you guys sound just as ignorant as those who make broad generalizations about people on welfare.
To your point though, none of that changes the fact that the war on poverty is loss.
My question is faced with this failure, why is it that suggestions for other courses of action are rejected out right in favor of our current failed approach. Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results is text book insanity...
sidenote: i defend the poor when debating conservatives
"No society has ever existed without disease, healthcare is silly and a waste of resources."
except poverty isnt being reduced...Why do you guys try so hard to defend failed policies?
and the war on drugs is a failed policy as well and a waste.
How many times must this happen before you realize govt. isnt the answer?
So true, the income of the low, middle, and upper class need to rise together.
Obama is so focused on compromise he pushes policy which includes provisions that lets people get around regulations, causing the same loop holes to exist which were closed 15+ years ago.
And that does not include the atrocious tax loops holes.
You guys continuously point out how govt. keeps f*cking you, then suggest more govt. to fix it...
I mean... come on brehs
Last edited:
Why do you guys try so hard to defend failed policies?
and the war on drugs is a failed policy as well and a waste.
"It turns out to be a bit of a trick question. It’s easy to show that much of what we’ve done to reduce poverty has been highly successful."
Conservative logic: "Poverty still exists therefore welfare failed."
A waste yes, but perhaps not a "failed" policy depending on what the actual intended outcomes were/are.
The war on poverty was intended to end poverty, in that it has failed. Where exactly is the logic fail?
If there is any error it was made by those who promised to eliminate poverty.
But to be fair, no one actually expects poverty to be eliminated completely.
Go on...
You could argue the war on drug's real intention is/was to fuel the prison industrial complex and keep down those of lower income/class and people of color.
In that sense its been a huge success.
You could argue the war on drug's real intention is/was to fuel the prison industrial complex and keep down those of lower income/class and people of color.
I'd agree with this.Not sure these are factual statements... people proposed that we would eliminate poverty?The war on poverty was intended to end poverty, in that it has failed. Where exactly is the logic fail?
If there is any error it was made by those who promised to eliminate poverty.
That's the key, just because a program doesn't achieve some lofty idealized goals that some people may have held doesn't make it a failure. If a CEO institutes a policy to achieve the "goal" of eliminating employee turnover and the result is employee turnover is reduced by 90% did the policy fail?
The income of an individual doesnt okay unwarranted criticism.
Maybe if you guys were more specific, rather then making broad generalizations it would come across better, but right now you guys sound just as ignorant as those who make broad generalizations about people on welfare.
To your point though, none of that changes the fact that the war on poverty is loss.
My question is faced with this failure, why is it that suggestions for other courses of action are rejected out right in favor of our current failed approach. Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results is text book insanity...
I wouldn't say I advocate our current approach, as right now I feel our policies favor the rich. But I'm open to other courses of action.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the Libertarian position is "Deregulate everything and let the free market handle it" or "Let charities deal with the poor"...I don't consider those to be actual courses of action, much less viable ways to deal with the issue.
I'm not gonna defend the war on drugs, not sure why that was even brought up.
At what point would you call it a failure?
This is why govt. policies last indefinitely. There is no clear goal, or score sheet.
Reduce regulation, and rely on charity more, thats it. Regulation is the tool of corporations, not the consumer.I wouldn't say I advocate our current approach, as right now I feel our policies favor the rich. But I'm open to other courses of action.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the Libertarian position is "Deregulate everything and let the free market handle it" or "Let charities deal with the poor"...I don't consider those to be actual courses of action, much less viable ways to deal with the issue.
I'm not gonna defend the war on drugs, not sure why that was even brought up.
..and I dont get why liberals are so anti charity...
"Still, that rate is considerably lower than two important benchmarks. First, thanks to a recent study by poverty scholars from Columbia University (see chart and source below), we can track this improved metric back to the latter 1960s. In 1967, about 26 percent were poor compared to 16 percent in 2012. (a reduction of 38%)
Second — and this benchmark really gets to the question of the effectiveness of anti-poverty policies — absent those policies, the 2012 rate would be 29 percent, meaning that the value of food stamps, unemployment benefits, the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies and more lifted 13 percent of the population — 40 million people — out of poverty that year."
Seriously, did you read the op?