the war on poverty was not a failure

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 90
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
food stamps give food to people who can't afford it and might starve. healthcare policy gives healthcare to people who can't afford it. section 8 gives shelter to people who would be homeless.

most people dont try to stay poor to get these things. the ones that do stay poor, feel that is their best option, so it's not such a bad thing. even if these programs keep some people poor, they still accomplish their ends of feeding and tending to their needs, so the war on poverty isn't a bad thing. 

#2
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
I agree that helping the poor is a good thing, but in the end, the war on poverty is a failure because it hasn't prevented poverty. All it does is fight symptoms of poverty. If we want a real war on poverty, we need to go after the roots of what is causing the poverty. And so long as the economy is run by corrupt oligarchs, that isn't going to happen. 

#3
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
It caused poverty to stagnate after it was falling for decades before the bill was even passed.

food stamps give food to people who can't afford it and might starve.
They don't starve if they earned the food by having a job.  If they are working a minimum wage job, they should get a better job.  If they don't have a college degree, that's fine.  There are 13 million jobs according to the University of Georgetown that only require a HS degree that pay $55K or more per year.  If two parents work those jobs, that's $110K per year per household at least.

healthcare policy gives healthcare to people who can't afford it.
Under a medicare for all system, which I actually support since it's cheaper then the alternative by 50%, everyone gets covered, including the poor.

section 8 gives shelter to people who would be homeless.
If we show them where the better jobs are, and they work these jobs and earn a good salary, then section 8 housing becomes obsolete and no longer necessary.

most people dont try to stay poor to get these things
The vast majority of them are poor because they don't know how to get out of the situation, because of the war on poverty, which had halted the poverty rate falling for decades.  Poor people need to be independent of the government.

the ones that do stay poor, feel that is their best option, so it's not such a bad thing.
If you want to be poor, that's fine.  But don't expect me to have to pay for your welfare or any other American citizen.

even if these programs keep some people poor, they still accomplish their ends of feeding and tending to their needs
So your saying being dependent on taxpayers is a good thing?  We got to get people out of poverty, not keep them on it.

#4
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
I agree that helping the poor is a good thing, but in the end, the war on poverty is a failure because it hasn't prevented poverty.

I 100% agree.  I'm glad that your crossing the political aisle.

Topic's author
#5
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Alec
@HistoryBuff
if a disease causes you to cough, and a pill makes the cough go away, it's still a good thing even if the disease is still present
Topic's author
#6
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Alec
even if many people work trade jobs and make more money, there will always be people who are forced to work minimum wage or in that territory. that means it's necessary to help them in the most basic ways possible, food and healthcare. 

#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
Perhaps a war on greed would be more pertinent.
#8
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
if a disease causes you to cough, and a pill makes the cough go away, it's still a good thing even if the disease is still present
<br>
True, but should other people have to pay for that pill?  Or should you pay for it yourself?  Assuming the pill was like food, to where I don't know anyone that wants to nationalize it, you should pay for that pill yourself.

there will always be people who are forced to work minimum wage or in that territory.
Not accurate.  McDonalds, a company that hires many minimum wage workers can merely automate.  That solves the problem of labor that they would lose.  The workers benefit because they now have to work a different job, but a job that pays much better per hour so they can get out of poverty with automation.
#9
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
Perhaps a war on greed would be more pertinent.
Saying the rich should pay huge sums of money to help the poor is like saying that we should pay huge sums of money to help places like Africa.  Yet should the government force us to donate money to poor places like Africa, India, and Latin America?  No. If you think they should, then led by example and donate like 20% of your income to these poor places.  Charity is fine.  But the government forcing you to do involuntary charity is a problem because it lacks your consent.
#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
Bloomberg is so bad both parties hate him.
like I said, dealing with the symptoms is still a good thing. But that isn't a war that can ever be won. It was always going to be a failure because they never tried to address the reasons poverty exists. They just want to throw some money at it so they can feel like they are helping and so they can get some votes by showing they are helping. 

To actually solve the core problems they would need to undermine the economic interests of their campaign donors, and very few politicians would ever consider doing that. 


#11
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Bloomberg is so bad both parties hate him.
n8nrgmi didn't say that here.

#12
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
To actually solve the core problems they would need to undermine the economic interests of their campaign donors, and very few politicians would ever consider doing that. 

Although I don't want our politicians bought, we need to get the government out fiscally if we wish to reduce/eliminate poverty.
#13
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Alec
n8nrgmi didn't say that here.
oops. that was from a different thread. I think it was still copied. 

Although I don't want our politicians bought, we need to get the government out fiscally if we wish to reduce/eliminate poverty.
This makes no sense at all. Unrestricted capitalism is a cause of poverty. You are arguing that we should take actions that will massively increase poverty in order to fight poverty. 
#14
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Unrestricted capitalism is a cause of poverty.

This is true, but we need less restrictions.  Some restrictions that I'd want to overturn are:

-I want to abolish the minimum wage.
-I want to legalize child labor in some instances (children shouldn't be operating heavy machines or other dangerous jobs, but what's wrong with them operating a cashier for instance on the weekends?)
-I'd want to legalize and regulate monopolies.  Any concerns that come across with monopolies, there can be regulations for.  If your worried about them selling things at a higher price, there can be a regulation for that.  If your worried about firing workers or paying them low wages, I fail to see how that would happen solely from there being a monopoly.  If it does happen, we can require that monopolies can't reduce their worker's wages.

You are arguing that we should take actions that will massively increase poverty
I don't think they would increase poverty.  Abolishing the minimum wage for example, would get low income people to find better jobs now that they can't live off of the minimum wage.  Once they do this and they find a better job, then in that job, they would be making like triple their current salary at least because the job pays better and then they would get themselves out of poverty.  Multiply that on a scale of millions, and poverty is basically gone in the US.

Why can't they find a better job if their current one doesn't pay as well?  If it's because they don't have a college degree, that's fine.  There are so many jobs out there that pay very good salaries that only require a HS degree to actually do that if low income people knew where to look, then they would be out of poverty.
#15
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
I sent you a friend request, if you're interested.
#16
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Alec
Unrestricted capitalism is a cause of poverty.
This is true, but we need less restrictions. 
this seems to be completely backward. you acknowledge that unrestricted capitalism is a problem, but then immediately advocate moving further into unrestricted capitalism. There are already too few restrictions. That is one of the main reasons we have so many problems with poverty. 

-I want to abolish the minimum wage.
why? Minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum needed to be able to live. If an employer were to pay less than that, the employee's would either starve to death or be reliant on government programs to survive. This would mean you are offloading expenses from profitable companies onto the tax payers. It is corporatism (ie, socialism, except you use the government to benefit companies instead of people)

-I want to legalize child labor in some instances (children shouldn't be operating heavy machines or other dangerous jobs, but what's wrong with them operating a cashier for instance on the weekends?)
what age are you suggesting? I had my 1st job at 15. Are you advocating for putting 8 years olds in cashier jobs?

-I'd want to legalize and regulate monopolies.  Any concerns that come across with monopolies, there can be regulations for.  If your worried about them selling things at a higher price, there can be a regulation for that.  If your worried about firing workers or paying them low wages, I fail to see how that would happen solely from there being a monopoly.  If it does happen, we can require that monopolies can't reduce their worker's wages.
this is probably the worst thing we could possibly do. This is the exact opposite of what capitalism is supposed to be about. Capitalism is supposed to be about competition driving growth and keeping costs down. If you allow industries to be monopolized you lose the benefits of capitalism and amplify the problems. There is literally no upside to this idea.

Abolishing the minimum wage for example, would get low income people to find better jobs now that they can't live off of the minimum wage.
no, it would massively increase poverty by allowing companies to force people into lower wages that they can't possibly live on. It would massively ramp up the costs of social programs as millions more people rely on food banks and food stamps to stay alive. 

 Once they do this and they find a better job, then in that job, they would be making like triple their current salary at least because the job pays better and then they would get themselves out of poverty.  Multiply that on a scale of millions, and poverty is basically gone in the US.
I honestly have no idea what you think will happen. you think that by allowing companies to pay their workers less, workers will somehow magically make more money. That makes no sense. 

Why can't they find a better job if their current one doesn't pay as well?  If it's because they don't have a college degree, that's fine.  There are so many jobs out there that pay very good salaries that only require a HS degree to actually do that if low income people knew where to look, then they would be out of poverty.
This sounds like an argument for more government resources to help people find jobs and has nothing to do with the minimum wage. 
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Perhaps a war on greed would be more pertinent.

Well said. The poor should STFU and be glad of their peasant status.
#18
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin have entered the chat
#19
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin have entered the chat
Lol yes, because having rules that benefit society is communism. It's like the right isn't even trying any more. When you label literally everyone a communist and a socialist, the words lose all meaning.

Obama was basically moderate republican in alot of his policies, and the right painted him a socialist too. 


#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
He wasn't a socialist until the point he lied 50 plus times about keeping your healthcare if you like it.

Authoritative Obamacare destroyed choices and American Liberty.

The democratic party does not stand for personal liberty anymore.
#21
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
He wasn't a socialist until the point he lied 50 plus times about keeping your healthcare if you like it.
this doesn't make any sense. Lying doesn't make you a socialist. Republicans lie all the time. Obama wasn't a socialist. He wasn't even really on the left on alot of issues. 

Authoritative Obamacare destroyed choices and American Liberty.
The ACA was a republican plan. Obama picked it because he wanted to find common ground to get healthcare reform passed. It was only after it became Obama's plan that republican's decided it was communism. 

The democratic party does not stand for personal liberty anymore.
The republican party pushed through massive restrictions to personal liberty under bush trying to turn the US into a police state. That isn't a left or right issue. 


#22
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The ACA was a republican plan.

This is simpy false. ACÁ was shoved down the throats of Republicans with the 60 Democratic Senators needed to invoke cloture on the filibuster. Not one Republican in the Senate voted for that bill.

Obama picked it because he wanted to find common ground to get healthcare reform passed.
Utter bull. Scott Brown won in MA because people despised ACA. There was no common ground. 

It was only after it became Obama's plan that republican's decided it was communism. 
Obamacare took away the right of people to choose their healthcare. I think we can agree that not letting people have freedom is wrong. And I think you need to learn the difference between communism and socialism.
#23
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
The democratic party does not stand for personal liberty anymore.

It’s a disaster. I’m ashamed of my generation that eagerly supports abolishing individual rights.
#24
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
The easiest way to fix poverty is to increase the supply of, and/or reduce the demand for, food, health care, and shelter.
#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Christen
Increase the supply of jobs by not price-fixing wages and not unfairly taxing people with capital to supply those jobs.

Increase the supply of housing by allowing free competition for housing construction and not price-fixing rents.

#26
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Christen
The easiest way to fix poverty is to increase the supply of, and/or reduce the demand for, food, health care, and shelter.

As a black man, how do you feel about Barack Obama?
#27
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
The ACA was a republican plan.
This is simpy false. ACÁ was shoved down the throats of Republicans with the 60 Democratic Senators needed to invoke cloture on the filibuster. Not one Republican in the Senate voted for that bill.
no, it is very much true. It was modeled on Romneycare and primarily designed by a right wing think tank. If a republican president had suggested it, it would have been pushed through by republicans, not democrats. The reason they opposed it was because Obama was the one suggesting it. It was still a republican plan though.

Obama picked it because he wanted to find common ground to get healthcare reform passed.
Utter bull. Scott Brown won in MA because people despised ACA. There was no common ground. 
there would have been if the republicans weren't complete hypocrites. the ACA was a republican plan (as described above). But when a democrat pushed it suddenly it wall all about death panels and some nonsense. There was no common ground because the republicans were determined to sabotage any plan obama suggested, even if it was their plan. 

Obamacare took away the right of people to choose their healthcare. I think we can agree that not letting people have freedom is wrong.
how? It took away their right to choose to not have healthcare at all. But it didn't force them to pick a specific plan. They still very much had the right to choose their healthcare. 

And I think you need to learn the difference between communism and socialism.
The right uses them interchangeably and so frequently that they have lost all meaning. Frankly, the terms are irrelevant cold war jargon at this point. 
#28
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
no, it is very much true. It was modeled on Romneycare and primarily designed by a right wing think tank. If a republican president had suggested it, it would have been pushed through by republicans, not democrats. The reason they opposed it was because Obama was the one suggesting it. It was still a republican plan though.

Romneycare was a something by Mitt Romney in one state. You have no idea what you’re talking about. It was by no means a Republican plan because no Republican suggested it nor was any Republican echoing those ideas lol. Please source me where it says those elements were supported by Republicans in the Senate in 2009.

there would have been if the republicans weren't complete hypocrites. the ACA was a republican plan (as described above). But when a democrat pushed it suddenly it wall all about death panels and some nonsense. There was no common ground because the republicans were determined to sabotage any plan obama suggested, even if it was their plan. 
Do you even know what a filibuster is? Or how many votes it takes to invoke cloture? Democrats shoved ACA down the throats of Republicans in the Senate. 

how? It took away their right to choose to not have healthcare at all.
Exhibit A.

But it didn't force them to pick a specific plan. They still very much had the right to choose their healthcare. 
Keep your doctor keep your plan. Did that work out? “Choosing their healthcare” my ass. (Exhibit B)
#29
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
You seeing this?
#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
Romneycare wasn’t even a thing in 2009 bro. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
romneycare passed in in 2006. I think it is you who doesn't know what they are talking about. 

It was by no means a Republican plan because no Republican suggested it nor was any Republican echoing those ideas lol.
The ACA was based on romneycare (which was passed in 2006) as well as a plan from a right wing think tank. It was absolutely a republican plan. 

Please source me where it says those elements were supported by Republicans in the Senate in 2009.
This is exactly my point. The ACA was based on republican healthcare plans, but as soon as Obama proposed slightly modified version of their ideas, they all came out against it. The reason no republicans supported it is they don't actually care about helping people, they just wanted to trash anything obama suggested for political points. 

Do you even know what a filibuster is? Or how many votes it takes to invoke cloture? Democrats shoved ACA down the throats of Republicans in the Senate. 
again, this is because they are political hacks. They were fighting tooth and nail against their own plan to try to score cheap political points. 

how? It took away their right to choose to not have healthcare at all.
Exhibit A.
this is just getting sad. You said it took away americans ability to choose their healthcare. I explained how it in no way prevented americans from choosing any healthcare they wanted. You then acted like i didn't disprove your point. 

Keep your doctor keep your plan. Did that work out? “Choosing their healthcare” my ass. (Exhibit B)
I agree, obama wasn't anywhere near aggressive enough. He tried to negotiate with the republicans thinking they would act like reasonable adults and cooperate to create a reasonable plan. Instead they threw tantrums and sabotaged the plan in every single way they could. In the end the plan got watered down so much that it barely functioned. Obama should have put forward a much more aggressive healthcare plan and then shoved it down those bastards throats since they were going to fight literally anything he did anyway.