The war on poverty: 50 years old

[renocat]

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?

[puniraptor]

You have an awful lot of questions.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

People gave up on the war on drugs in half the time, and in spite of fewer people being on drugs.  Libtards gonna libtard

[bones129]

Given up on posting in the sports threads, renocat?

[Kat Kid]

I wonder if the standard of living has moved at all since 1964 so it is always a moving target.

[_33]

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

[gatoveintisiet]

Maybe we should just bring the troops home, seems like a quagmire.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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????

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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.

[Kat Kid]

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

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

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

[Asteriskhead]

The Great Society

[DavidJones]

If you're given crap for free, you're less likely to do an effort.

[chuckjames]

If you're given crap for free, you're less likely to do an effort.

STRONG TAKE 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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....

[Paul Moscow]

If you're given crap for free, you're less likely to do an effort.

 

[chuckjames]

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.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm pro-farm subsidies. But then again, I'm pro-America, too.

[chuckjames]

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?

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[chuckjames]

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?     

[Rage Against the McKee]

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?     

If you live in Kansas, then you are a conservative.

[Asteriskhead]

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?     

If you live in Kansas, then you are a conservative.

huh?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.