Hey conservatives, THIS is what you support???

cawacko said:
What philsophy did the Clinton Administration employ? The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was said by to some that it was going to hurt and impoverish millions of children and single mothers. I think it has been shown that's not the case. Did you support it at the time?
Click to expand...

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

You haven't heard a word I said. You have no understanding of what the War on Poverty was all about.

Just keep believing your right wing definitions of liberals. It won't overtax your brain.
 
Bfgrn said:
The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

You haven't heard a word I said. You have no understanding of what the War on Poverty was all about.

Just keep believing your right wing definitions of liberals. It won't overtax your brain.
Click to expand...

LOL... you never can answer questions people pose to you... can you?
 
Bfgrn said:
The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

You haven't heard a word I said. You have no understanding of what the War on Poverty was all about.

Just keep believing your right wing definitions of liberals. It won't overtax your brain.
Click to expand...

I don't view everything through a liberal/conservative position. I don't understand that mindset. I've commented on the graphs posted and what the numbers showed and then I asked you a question about a comment you made regarding the Clinton Administration and a piece of legislation they passed and your opinion on it. I'm not sure what that has to do with right wing definition of liberals.
 
Superfreak said:
LOL... you never can answer questions people pose to you... can you?
Click to expand...

There is no need to answer it, because if cawacko or a pea brain like you had actually READ and comprehended what the War on Poverty was all about, the question would never had been asked.
 
Bfgrn said:
The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

You haven't heard a word I said. You have no understanding of what the War on Poverty was all about.

Just keep believing your right wing definitions of liberals. It won't overtax your brain.
Click to expand...

We have more people in poverty now than we did when the war on poverty started. Maybe if we spend more. Yeah, that's it. We need to spend more money. Right?
 
cawacko said:
I don't view everything through a liberal/conservative position. I don't understand that mindset. I've commented on the graphs posted and what the numbers showed and then I asked you a question about a comment you made regarding the Clinton Administration and a piece of legislation they passed and your opinion on it. I'm not sure what that has to do with right wing definition of liberals.
Click to expand...

Because what Clinton did is consistent with what the War on Poverty was all about. I stated it more than once in this thread.

From my very first post about WOP (12):

Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program strove for maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)
 
Superfreak said:
You will have to ask him. I would guess and say because he wanted to show the data that was relevant.



I have never stated that there weren't people that benefited from the programs. The problem is you seem to have trouble comprehending the FACT that the 'war on poverty' FAILED.

AGAIN, if you intended to discuss JUST the time the program existed under Johnson/Shriver.... then WHY did you highlight the years the poverty rate declined under Clinton.

Of course future Congresses and Presidents put their own stamp on the program. Just as they did in the failed war on drugs. That doesn't change the fact that BOTH 'wars' were complete failures.



Which is blatantly FALSE. Or are you going to pretend the SIX percent decline in the poverty rate PRIOR to the war on poverty implemented by Johnson and run by Shriver didn't exist??? Since then the poverty rate has bounced in a range based on ECONOMIC conditions.

ALSO... you pretend that somehow Clinton reverted back to 'the same philosophy'.... that is complete bullshit. The poverty rate declined under Clinton because the ECONOMY BOOMED during the 90's due to the Tech/internet/telecom/biotech explosion.
Click to expand...

If people benefited from the programs, by the MILLIONS, then how can it be a complete failure? Because a fucking GRAPH that is effected by MILLIONS of policies, actions, ideology shifts and the multiples that are created by so many other factors says so?
 
Bfgrn said:
If people benefited from the programs, by the MILLIONS, then how can it be a complete failure? Because a fucking GRAPH that is effected by MILLIONS of policies, actions, ideology shifts and the multiples that are created by so many other factors says so?
Click to expand...

We have 43 million people on food stamps. I think we're losing the war on poverty. Maybe if we spend more. Would you agree with that?
 
Bfgrn said:
. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)
Click to expand...

You continue making this claim.... yet it is 100% FALSE. There was a 6% drop in the poverty rate PRIOR to the 'war on poverty'

You also ignore the decline under Reagan.

You also ignore the FACT that the poverty rate was the SAME in 2009 as it was in 1965.

You make stupid comments like 'if you read up on the war on poverty (ie... only read what YOU tell US to read) you will see that I am right'.... of course back in reality, we read ALL of the information available to us.
 
Bfgrn said:
If people benefited from the programs, by the MILLIONS, then how can it be a complete failure? Because a fucking GRAPH that is effected by MILLIONS of policies, actions, ideology shifts and the multiples that are created by so many other factors says so?
Click to expand...

People can benefit from the programs without the programs overall goal not being reached you fucking moron.

People BENEFIT from welfare checks... ie... but did they get out of poverty due to the check?

So yes moron.... we DO look at the CHANGE in POVERTY rate to determine if the WAR on POVERTY was successful or not.
 
Bfgrn said:
If people benefited from the programs, by the MILLIONS, then how can it be a complete failure? Because a fucking GRAPH that is effected by MILLIONS of policies, actions, ideology shifts and the multiples that are created by so many other factors says so?
Click to expand...

Its one thing to throw a graph under the bus as statistically meaningless. Its another thing to throw your own graph under the bus as statistically meaningless, having already presented it as a meaningful piece of data. LOLZ
 
Superfreak said:
You continue making this claim.... yet it is 100% FALSE. There was a 6% drop in the poverty rate PRIOR to the 'war on poverty'

You also ignore the decline under Reagan.

You also ignore the FACT that the poverty rate was the SAME in 2009 as it was in 1965.

You make stupid comments like 'if you read up on the war on poverty (ie... only read what YOU tell US to read) you will see that I am right'.... of course back in reality, we read ALL of the information available to us.
Click to expand...

It is frustrating as an intelligent person to argue with someone who MUST be missing a large section of his brain.

IF-THEN

IF there was no War on Poverty and the programs that helped MILLIONS of citizens - THEN without the War on Poverty and those programs the number of people in poverty would be the SAME???

IF there was no War on Poverty and the programs that helped MILLIONS of citizens pull themselves out of poverty with a hand up - THEN without the War on Poverty and those programs the number of people on WELFARE getting a hand OUT would be the SAME???

Can you tell me if the number of people on WELFARE would have gone up, gone down or stayed the same without the War on Poverty? Without a CHART, can you deduct???
 
Bfgrn said:
It is frustrating as an intelligent person to argue with someone who MUST be missing a large section of his brain.
Click to expand...

Well at least you recognize how frustrating it is for the rest of us to deal with you.

Once again you fail to address:

You continue making this claim.... yet it is 100% FALSE. There was a 6% drop in the poverty rate PRIOR to the 'war on poverty'

You also ignore the decline under Reagan.

You also ignore the FACT that the poverty rate was the SAME in 2009 as it was in 1965.

You make stupid comments like 'if you read up on the war on poverty (ie... only read what YOU tell US to read) you will see that I am right'.... of course back in reality, we read ALL of the information available to us.
Click to expand...
 
Bfgrn said:
IF there was no War on Poverty and the programs that helped MILLIONS of citizens - THEN without the War on Poverty and those programs the number of people in poverty would be the SAME???
Click to expand...

You keep making statement like the above.... do show us where you are getting your data from.

As for your question.... YES, the decline in the poverty rate was well under way PRIOR to the war on poverty. So there were OBVIOUSLY procedures in place that were causing the poverty rate to decline and helped reduce the poverty rate by 6%. A FAR greater success than ANY TIME since the war on poverty began.

IF there was no War on Poverty and the programs that helped MILLIONS of citizens pull themselves out of poverty with a hand up - THEN without the War on Poverty and those programs the number of people on WELFARE getting a hand OUT would be the SAME???
Click to expand...

Again.... you make a statement like the above... please show us a link to your data on the millions that pulled themselves out of poverty.

Again, you are asking the same question... the answer remains the same. The poverty rate was ALREADY in significant decline.

Can you tell me if the number of people on WELFARE would have gone up, gone down or stayed the same without the War on Poverty? Without a CHART, can you deduct???
Click to expand...

Yes I can.... as noted many times in this thread and ignored by you EVERY time.... during recessions the percentage in poverty would have gone up and in periods of economic growth it would have gone down.... just as it did before the 'war on poverty' began. Just as it did since after Shriver.... you know the period in which suddenly all the policies of his war on poverty shifted and thus stopped working, except for that brief period you claim Clinton implemented some mysterious phantom philosophy (though you refuse to tell us WHAT policy Clinton implemented that did so) that was similar to Shrivers.

And yes, we all know you will continue to ignore the decline under Reagan.
 
Bfgrn said:
It is frustrating as an intelligent person to argue with someone who MUST be missing a large section of his brain.

IF-THEN

IF there was no War on Poverty and the programs that helped MILLIONS of citizens - THEN without the War on Poverty and those programs the number of people in poverty would be the SAME???

IF there was no War on Poverty and the programs that helped MILLIONS of citizens pull themselves out of poverty with a hand up - THEN without the War on Poverty and those programs the number of people on WELFARE getting a hand OUT would be the SAME???

Can you tell me if the number of people on WELFARE would have gone up, gone down or stayed the same without the War on Poverty? Without a CHART, can you deduct???
Click to expand...

Sorry man I'm not following either. The statistics show we have the same percentage of people in poverty today that we did in 1965. If the War on Poverty brought millions of people out of poverty yet the poverty percentage stayed the same it would imply that the percentage would be much higher today without the program. Yet the statistics show the poverty rate was already dropping prior to the advent of the War on Poverty programs and basically ebbed and flowed with the economic cycles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top