Paul Ryan was on social programs from a young age all the way through college.
Then he went to work for Jack Kemp and has never known anything but living off the public dole.
Try all the sports socialism with new stadiums and corporate socialism and "tax-cuts-to-the-rich" socialism .
None. You compare current poverty rates to historical poverty rates and factor in the introduction of government programs as well as measures to keep people from entering poverty and you have yourself a pretty good indicator of whether the war on poverty has been successful. The US as a country has achieved a level of wealth that can't even be understood by people in 3rd world countries. Even the poorest Americans can count on dozens of government programs to help them, as well as hundreds of charities to pick up the slack. Whether Americans use them accurately or not is up to them but we certainly aren't facing starvation or poverty like the kind seen by our southern neighbors.
None. You compare current poverty rates to historical poverty rates and factor in the introduction of government programs as well as measures to keep people from entering poverty and you have yourself a pretty good indicator of whether the war on poverty has been successful. The US as a country has achieved a level of wealth that can't even be understood by people in 3rd world countries. Even the poorest Americans can count on dozens of government programs to help them, as well as hundreds of charities to pick up the slack. Whether Americans use them accurately or not is up to them but we certainly aren't facing starvation or poverty like the kind seen by our southern neighbors.
But be it as it may, the US free trade policy since 1945 has lifted enormous numbers of people out of starvation into the middle class. Alone since 1989 it has been about 2 billions. This has arguably been the outstanding development program of human history.
Indeed, and even the standard of living from just 3 decades ago has hugely improved. Our poor have flat-screen 42 inch televisions, A/C, cars, cell phones, are hyper-obese, eat MORE protein than the wealthy, and have computers and the internet.
And its not dozens of programs-its hundreds.
One needs to define poverty because according to the Heritage Study (taken directly from the census) most so-called poor people that the government claims are poor really arent poor: they have cars, large housing and adequate food to prevent them from starving, those with children even have an xBox. I wouldnt even classify them as poor.
So then you agree that these programs have been helpful in getting people out of poverty? BTW - you never replied to this (even though you definitely got a notification) so I thought I'd remind you that the invitation is still there:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/battl...207-debate-classifieds-11.html#post1063511992
Ive been banned for a while, but I remember that thread-I decided to spend my time elsewhere.
And no, I disagree that in general these programs are helpful in getting people out of poverty-these programs define success as getting more people signed up.
If you were banned, you wouldn't be here. That's why it's called a perma-ban. Any who, I wouldn't ask you to back up your assertions anyways. You're not the type to do that.
And yet:
- there are far more people living well above global indicators of poverty than any other point history. Source: Poverty: Not always with us | The Economist
- there is far more global economic regulation than at any point in history. That makes the argument that it is free trade that is responsible for people coming out of poverty nothing more than absolute nonsense.
I know we can't all be columbo but if Im here now, could it have been a temp ban I was referring to?
Regulation kills prosperity. Planned economies fail. The free market, unhindered by a distant and one-size-fits-all govt is the solution.
JoG said:But be it as it may, the US free trade policy since 1945 has lifted enormous numbers of people out of starvation into the middle class. Alone since 1989 it has been about 2 billions. This has arguably been the outstanding development program of human history.
US Conservative said:Absolutely-and in fact the same recipe for success, when adopted by other nations has rapidly delivered people from even the worst poverty.
Absolutely-and in fact the same recipe for success, when adopted by other nations has rapidly delivered people from even the worst poverty. And it was from adopting capitalist policies-China and India are the best examples.
The US "free trade" policy has come hand in hand with the most globally regulated economy of any period in human history. This makes your claim that it is "free trade" that has pushed people out of poverty patently false. Again, you just agreed that the US (which falls behind "socialist" free trade heavens like Canada, Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, etc) has pushed people out of poverty through "free trade agreements" that have caused the global economy to become far more regulated, taxed and victim to situations where monopolies are created. Congratulations. You've divided your ideology by zero and must now deal with
1) More people than ever coming out of poverty.
2) The global economy marching towards its most regulated point ever.
Marriage (or an analog by another name if you prefer), meaning a male and female adult in the home means two incomes, more flexibility, less negative impacts to children, and a better life. Save me the red herrings, I am speaking generally. A single parent household (over 70% in many demos), lack of even basic education (LA county has a 30% HS graduation rate) , and the inability to retain a job do not lead to success. Lets stop pretending and being PC-this is too important to ignore.
Im not instructing anybody-Im recognizing the facts of life and stating this isn't an insurmountable goal.
Most people who work and fall under the poverty level DONT WORK FULL TIME HOURS.
Two income earners trump one.
Education and HS graduation trump being a drop out.
Working and being just above the poverty level is preferable to being under the poverty level, and getting just enough handouts to keep one on the democrat vote plantation.
There is no better delivery vehicle from poverty than capitalism. Your marxist class struggle BS has demonstrably failed, time and time again-all over the world, and in various cultures, for the last century.
None. You compare current poverty rates to historical poverty rates and factor in the introduction of government programs as well as measures to keep people from entering poverty and you have yourself a pretty good indicator of whether the war on poverty has been successful. The US as a country has achieved a level of wealth that can't even be understood by people in 3rd world countries. Even the poorest Americans can count on dozens of government programs to help them, as well as hundreds of charities to pick up the slack. Whether Americans use them effectively or not is up to them but we certainly aren't facing starvation or poverty like the kind seen by our southern neighbors. FFS, we live in a country where the poverty line is set at $23K! There are entire families in Pakistan living comfortably on a 4th of that! So yeah, none of those even measure the success or failure of the "war on poverty" because the US' war on poverty is a bit of a joke to begin with.
There is no temp banned. Anywho. Admit you saw your claim, realized you had no ground to stand on after it was completely obliterated in thread by me - then ran off on when challenged on the matter through a formal debate. Ain't no shame in it.
Hahahaha - That's nice but nobody is discussing that. However the rest of your post (in bold) is the reason why you're way out of your league. You just agreed with this statement:
The US "free trade" policy has come hand in hand with the most globally regulated economy of any period in human history. This makes your claim that it is "free trade" that has pushed people out of poverty patently false. Again, you just agreed that the US (which falls behind "socialist" free trade heavens like Canada, Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, etc) has pushed people out of poverty through "free trade agreements" that have caused the global economy to become far more regulated, taxed and victim to situations where monopolies are created. Congratulations. You've divided your ideology by zero and must now deal with
1) More people than ever coming out of poverty.
2) The global economy marching towards its most regulated point ever.
That is a very nice summing up and understandable to even the left leaning in the population.
Free commerce never meant zero regulation. Anyone to say that is only limitedly educated in economics or trying to bend the truth by using deceptive language. You shouldn't learn from that type of people other than that propaganda is a bad consultant.
You don't want to be PC? Fine. Marriage isn't stable. It fails half the time. Having kids is idiotic too if you're struggling to stay out of poverty. They're either neglected or expensive as hell. If you care about the poor having a better life, consider how pitiful the minimum wage is. Not this expecting 18 year old kids fresh out of high school to marry just so they can get by.
If it's their only way to survive because repubs refuse to raise minimum wage it's in fact instructing them. It's the "facts of life" because that's how the lobbyists have instructed the politicians to make it.
Yeah because their employer cut hours or there's nothing hiring full time, so they take what they can get. Even office jobs are going remote desktop. 40 hour work weeks will disappear for the majority soon anyway i predict, as labor becomes more and more obsolete. It's archaic and a new model is needed.
And 14 trumps 2. I guess super-polygamy will soon be in vogue
I did extremely well in HS and can tell you i learned far more outside school. Perhaps some entry level employers care about that diploma, but the joke's on them. Don't pretend graduating magically turns some 70 IQ teenager into a highly employable savant. Even college grads are finding this out.
Depends on the situation. You know how many applications are filled out for ghetto jobs saying "don't hire me" just so they stay on unemployment benefits? I've seen it plenty. It can become not worth the constant struggle. Try living out in rural area needing to drive 30 miles to $8/hr job. That's 2.5hr of work just for gas. So they should move right. But they're 18 and can't afford a place. Bummer. Nothing like a married couple living with parents till age 23 just so the mcdonald's ceo can eek out a bit more profit.
Lol capitalism totally failed. Look up 2008 bank and auto bailouts. That's socialism to the max. Everyone except the bankers and vulture capitalists are living with the consequences, especially the young, so spare me the lecture.
What other culture allowed such a vast amount and proportion of the wealth to go to 1% of the population? This isn't 1890s europe. You haven't offered a viable solution either. 22% of *kids* live in poverty. This "let them marry or starve" mentality, well, if you were super rich, sooner or later the poor will come for you.
`The war on poverty has failed by any objective measure-there is nothing compassionate about robbing people of their initiative. For the same reasons that foreign aid does not help poor nations but rather facilitates corruption and preventing nations from developing the infrastructure and policies that actually DO deliver nations from poverty.There is no better vehicle for this than capitalism-and the only creatures in existence who have all their needs provided for are captive animals. Everyone else works for themselves-which is also where we happen to work hardest.In the US, the war on poverty is merely a system to force the poor to vote for dependency on the Democrat party. This is why we see such a desire to import poor immigrants, in addition to the forced contributions from union members to said party. The democrat party can't exist without these people dependant on them-and they know it.
Liberals aren't interested in getting people out of poverty, that would only cost them votes. They want to keep the poor in the poor house and buy their votes with government freebies. Surely everyone realizes that.
And how about the quality of living for the non working poor? Do we concern ourselves with them?
I am who I've always been.
As platitudes go, it's not even a good one of those. Who, exactly, is controlling the water hose? From what you're saying, that's who you should want to be.
Total Accumulated Debt--a phenomenon not known until Reagan's time--
though to be fair and it's difficult--O'Neill deserves just as much of my vitriol .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?