goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: renocat on September 21, 2014, 10:19:48 PM
-
In 1964, President Johnson declared war on poverty. 50 years lster we have some 80 federal programs aiding the poor, fedreral-state spending on the poor is about 940 billion per year, but the percent of people in poverty now is higher than in 1964. So are winning this war? Programs do relieve suffering - so is this victory? Or have we failed, since the % of poor folk does not decline? Will we ever make progress?
-
You have an awful lot of questions.
-
People gave up on the war on drugs in half the time, and in spite of fewer people being on drugs. Libtards gonna libtard
-
Given up on posting in the sports threads, renocat?
-
I wonder if the standard of living has moved at all since 1964 so it is always a moving target.
-
This thread reminded me of this hilarious joke thread I started a few years ago.
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=3200.msg52314#msg52314
-
Maybe we should just bring the troops home, seems like a quagmire.
-
I wonder if the standard of living has moved at all since 1964 so it is always a moving target.
rough ridin' 1% ers, or 47% ers or whatever percent is considered not poverty.
What if standard of living is worse????
-
Pubs should run with this though. I mean, everyone knows these programs aren't intended to lift anyone up, but it's a great parallel to the "failed war on drugs" talking point, and that war cost a fraction of a percent of the welfare state.
-
Pubs should run with this though. I mean, everyone knows these programs aren't intended to lift anyone up, but it's a great parallel to the "failed war on drugs" talking point, and that war cost a fraction of a percent of the welfare state.
Most Republicans Just Say No
-
Pubs should run with this though. I mean, everyone knows these programs aren't intended to lift anyone up, but it's a great parallel to the "failed war on drugs" talking point, and that war cost a fraction of a percent of the welfare state.
Most Republicans Just Say No
Bill Maher joke? Woof
-
The Great Society :love:
-
If you're given crap for free, you're less likely to do an effort.
-
If you're given crap for free, you're less likely to do an effort.
STRONG TAKE :Wha:
-
Pubs should run with this though. I mean, everyone knows these programs aren't intended to lift anyone up, but it's a great parallel to the "failed war on drugs" talking point, and that war cost a fraction of a percent of the welfare state.
You serious Clark? Seems to me that the massive expansion of dependency on government benefits has allowed the Dems to pretty much lock down the electoral college and presidency.
The expansion of welfare has resulted in a lot of things - massive deficits, a lot more people stuck on welfare, and a lot more Dems in power - but it hasn't made a dent in poverty. A cynic might question whether that was ever the point....
-
If you're given crap for free, you're less likely to do an effort.
:D
-
Pubs should run with this though. I mean, everyone knows these programs aren't intended to lift anyone up, but it's a great parallel to the "failed war on drugs" talking point, and that war cost a fraction of a percent of the welfare state.
You serious Clark? Seems to me that the massive expansion of dependency on government benefits has allowed the Dems to pretty much lock down the electoral college and presidency.
The expansion of welfare has resulted in a lot of things - massive deficits, a lot more people stuck on welfare, and a lot more Dems in power - but it hasn't made a dent in poverty. A cynic might question whether that was ever the point....
But the farm subsidies dont buy republican votes at all. I have yet to figure out someone can be for Farm Subsidies while preaching free market BS but im not a conservative.
-
Pubs should run with this though. I mean, everyone knows these programs aren't intended to lift anyone up, but it's a great parallel to the "failed war on drugs" talking point, and that war cost a fraction of a percent of the welfare state.
You serious Clark? Seems to me that the massive expansion of dependency on government benefits has allowed the Dems to pretty much lock down the electoral college and presidency.
The expansion of welfare has resulted in a lot of things - massive deficits, a lot more people stuck on welfare, and a lot more Dems in power - but it hasn't made a dent in poverty. A cynic might question whether that was ever the point....
But the farm subsidies dont buy republican votes at all. I have yet to figure out someone can be for Farm Subsidies while preaching free market BS but im not a conservative.
I'm against farm subsidies, too, but I don't think they "buy Republican votes" to the same extent welfare buys votes. Farmers and rural areas in general would mostly vote R anyway. No question that farm subsidies and other pork buy a crap ton of campaign contributions, though.
-
I'm pro-farm subsidies. But then again, I'm pro-America, too.
-
I'm pro-farm subsidies. But then again, I'm pro-America, too.
So explain to me the difference between subsidies and food stamps?? Other than 1 helps out affluent white people and the other helps out poor people?
-
I'm pro-farm subsidies. But then again, I'm pro-America, too.
So explain to me the difference between subsidies and food stamps?? Other than 1 helps out affluent white people and the other helps out poor people?
Subsidies support the supply side of keeping America fed and stamps support the demand side. Both are terrific programs.
-
I'm pro-farm subsidies. But then again, I'm pro-America, too.
So explain to me the difference between subsidies and food stamps?? Other than 1 helps out affluent white people and the other helps out poor people?
Subsidies support the supply side of keeping America fed and stamps support the demand side. Both are terrific programs.
So youre for both programs? As am I. Does that make me a conservative or you a liberal? :dunno:
-
I'm pro-farm subsidies. But then again, I'm pro-America, too.
So explain to me the difference between subsidies and food stamps?? Other than 1 helps out affluent white people and the other helps out poor people?
Subsidies support the supply side of keeping America fed and stamps support the demand side. Both are terrific programs.
So youre for both programs? As am I. Does that make me a conservative or you a liberal? :dunno:
If you live in Kansas, then you are a conservative.
-
I'm pro-farm subsidies. But then again, I'm pro-America, too.
So explain to me the difference between subsidies and food stamps?? Other than 1 helps out affluent white people and the other helps out poor people?
Subsidies support the supply side of keeping America fed and stamps support the demand side. Both are terrific programs.
So youre for both programs? As am I. Does that make me a conservative or you a liberal? :dunno:
If you live in Kansas, then you are a conservative.
huh?
-
I'm pro-farm subsidies. But then again, I'm pro-America, too.
So explain to me the difference between subsidies and food stamps?? Other than 1 helps out affluent white people and the other helps out poor people?
I'd hazard a guess that there's a lot more people who get off their ass and work among subsidy recipients than welfare recipients. So there's one difference, I guess. But again, we should scale both back. The same goes for energy subsidies and all other forms of wealth redistribution and cronyism.
-
I'm pro-farm subsidies. But then again, I'm pro-America, too.
So explain to me the difference between subsidies and food stamps?? Other than 1 helps out affluent white people and the other helps out poor people?
I'd hazard a guess that there's a lot more people who get off their ass and work among subsidy recipients than welfare recipients. So there's one difference, I guess. But again, we should scale both back. The same goes for energy subsidies and all other forms of wealth redistribution and cronyism.
Our defense spending is a bigger wealth redistribution system and cronyism than farm subs and welfare put together, but you don't care because defense kills brown people
-
Defense spending is our most effective form of economic stimulus. I'm always stunned when keynsian leftist retards rail against it.
As for farm subsidies, we sort of need to ensure a somewhat ready and consistent food supply, so yeah, we need it.
Welfare spending funnels mass amounts of money to Walmart, dollar general, Philip Morris, Tyson and other stuff leftists hate, and that amuses me. As noted in the OP it doesn't do anything to curtail poverty, and may cause more of it.
-
Defense spending is our most effective form of economic stimulus. I'm always stunned when keynsian leftist retards rail against it.
As for farm subsidies, we sort of need to ensure a somewhat ready and consistent food supply, so yeah, we need it.
Welfare spending funnels mass amounts of money to Walmart, dollar general, Philip Morris, Tyson and other stuff leftists hate, and that amuses me. As noted in the OP it doesn't do anything to curtail poverty, and may cause more of it.
Kinda agree, but it's a vicious circle of poor wages by those companies causing poor people on food stamps too. I'm a big believer in a guaranteed income for everyone, but that is probably a bridge too far for most of you to consider. It would be more efficient and cheaper than welfare and food stamps. IMO
-
Also I disagree domestic infrastructure spending is the most effective way to stimulate an economy. But yea military spending is second.
-
Defense spending is our most effective form of economic stimulus. I'm always stunned when keynsian leftist retards rail against it.
As for farm subsidies, we sort of need to ensure a somewhat ready and consistent food supply, so yeah, we need it.
Welfare spending funnels mass amounts of money to Walmart, dollar general, Philip Morris, Tyson and other stuff leftists hate, and that amuses me. As noted in the OP it doesn't do anything to curtail poverty, and may cause more of it.
It is, but that does not make it the ideal. But the most efficient parts of the stimulus are the employment, and benefits spending, not the R&D/defense contracts. Those are incredibly bad deals in terms of $/job.
-
I'm pro-farm subsidies. But then again, I'm pro-America, too.
So explain to me the difference between subsidies and food stamps?? Other than 1 helps out affluent white people and the other helps out poor people?
I'd hazard a guess that there's a lot more people who get off their ass and work among subsidy recipients than welfare recipients. So there's one difference, I guess. But again, we should scale both back. The same goes for energy subsidies and all other forms of wealth redistribution and cronyism.
Our defense spending is a bigger wealth redistribution system and cronyism than farm subs and welfare put together, but you don't care because defense kills brown people
Defense spending, while not always a great value, is the country buying a product, hiring labor, and funding research. The exact opposite of redistribution.
-
the terrible "value" is exactly what redistribution is. taking money from tax payers and giving it to corporations at ludicrous conversion rates. the fact that you neocons get your panties in a twist about minimal amounts of money being lost in welfare fraud but do not give a single eff about the huge inefficiencies of defense spending is pretty god damn mind blowing.
-
the terrible "value" is exactly what redistribution is. taking money from tax payers and giving it to corporations at ludicrous conversion rates. the fact that you neocons get your panties in a twist about minimal amounts of money being lost in welfare fraud but do not give a single eff about the huge inefficiencies of defense spending is pretty god damn mind blowing.
-
neocon platform: it's ok to fleece the government, as long as you're not poor
-
neocon platform: it's ok to fleece the government public, as long as you're not poor frame it correctly.
-
Defense spending is our most effective form of economic stimulus. I'm always stunned when keynsian leftist retards rail against it.
As for farm subsidies, we sort of need to ensure a somewhat ready and consistent food supply, so yeah, we need it.
Welfare spending funnels mass amounts of money to Walmart, dollar general, Philip Morris, Tyson and other stuff leftists hate, and that amuses me. As noted in the OP it doesn't do anything to curtail poverty, and may cause more of it.
It is, but that does not make it the ideal. But the most efficient parts of the stimulus are the employment, and benefits spending, not the R&D/defense contracts. Those are incredibly bad deals in terms of $/job.
Is it really more effective than giving straight cash to the public and letting them spend as they please?
-
the terrible "value" is exactly what redistribution is. taking money from tax payers and giving it to corporations at ludicrous conversion rates. the fact that you neocons get your panties in a twist about minimal amounts of money being lost in welfare fraud but do not give a single eff about the huge inefficiencies of defense spending is pretty god damn mind blowing.
The only thing that makes defense spending a poor value for taxpayers is the same thing that makes welfare fraud a multi billion dollar a year enterprise: poor oversight of taxpayer dollars, or "other people's money".
-
Defense spending is our most effective form of economic stimulus. I'm always stunned when keynsian leftist retards rail against it.
As for farm subsidies, we sort of need to ensure a somewhat ready and consistent food supply, so yeah, we need it.
Welfare spending funnels mass amounts of money to Walmart, dollar general, Philip Morris, Tyson and other stuff leftists hate, and that amuses me. As noted in the OP it doesn't do anything to curtail poverty, and may cause more of it.
It is, but that does not make it the ideal. But the most efficient parts of the stimulus are the employment, and benefits spending, not the R&D/defense contracts. Those are incredibly bad deals in terms of $/job.
Is it really more effective than giving straight cash to the public and letting them spend as they please?
I think it probably is. Do you have a study to show that it isn't?
-
Defense spending is our most effective form of economic stimulus. I'm always stunned when keynsian leftist retards rail against it.
As for farm subsidies, we sort of need to ensure a somewhat ready and consistent food supply, so yeah, we need it.
Welfare spending funnels mass amounts of money to Walmart, dollar general, Philip Morris, Tyson and other stuff leftists hate, and that amuses me. As noted in the OP it doesn't do anything to curtail poverty, and may cause more of it.
It is, but that does not make it the ideal. But the most efficient parts of the stimulus are the employment, and benefits spending, not the R&D/defense contracts. Those are incredibly bad deals in terms of $/job.
Is it really more effective than giving straight cash to the public and letting them spend as they please?
I think it probably is. Do you have a study to show that it isn't?
No, I searched. I figured something so obvious and widely agreed upon would have studies supporting it.
-
I saw this, but defense spending wasn't included and it's more of a discussion of temporary measures.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_whats_a_dollar_o.html
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Senate-Finance-Committee-Unemployment%20Insurance-041410.pdf
-
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31176.pdf
-
Defense spending is our most effective form of economic stimulus. I'm always stunned when keynsian leftist retards rail against it.
As for farm subsidies, we sort of need to ensure a somewhat ready and consistent food supply, so yeah, we need it.
Welfare spending funnels mass amounts of money to Walmart, dollar general, Philip Morris, Tyson and other stuff leftists hate, and that amuses me. As noted in the OP it doesn't do anything to curtail poverty, and may cause more of it.
It is, but that does not make it the ideal. But the most efficient parts of the stimulus are the employment, and benefits spending, not the R&D/defense contracts. Those are incredibly bad deals in terms of $/job.
Is it really more effective than giving straight cash to the public and letting them spend as they please?
Yes, because econ 101
-
the terrible "value" is exactly what redistribution is. taking money from tax payers and giving it to corporations at ludicrous conversion rates. the fact that you neocons get your panties in a twist about minimal amounts of money being lost in welfare fraud but do not give a single eff about the huge inefficiencies of defense spending is pretty god damn mind blowing.
This is complete fantasy.
-
Someone should tell Washington, South Carolina and Missouri to stop fighting so hard to get Boeing defense work in their state. Michigancat thinks welfare is more efficient government stimulus.