Billions of dollars spent on poverty, yet poverty levels unaffected

Why can we afford a War on Drugs that only exacerbates poverty?

 

The war on drugs exacerbates prison overcrowding.

One of the fears about ending it is swarms of people currently out of poverty falling into it as they fry their brains.

I suppose that's debatable, but that should really be another thread.

 

So where do you propose to locate all the cardboard box and scrap-tin mega ghettos that will grow massively when we have no programs for the poor?

We regularly see what happens in countries across the world when the government does nothing to help people at the bottom end of the economic spectrum.

They are called "3rd world countries".

 

Giving lazy people money they didn't earn is not the alternative to 3rd World poverty.

It only encourages the sort of 3rd World incompetence that makes backward countries poor in the first place.

 

Wait a second, these 'poor' had the opportunity to attend liberal dominated education centers, are you saying they are taught to be third world if the government stops giving them free stuff?

 

Some folks obviously need some heavy misfortune to come their way. We'll see what they say when that happens.

 

Heavy misfortune can usually be avoided by education combined with hard work.

Something that most of the chronic poor are unfamiliar with.

 

You are wrong, it is not a lie. Hard work is always the ingredient for success, but there is a process which requires goal oriented incremental steps to be able to achieve anything you want. Do you honestly think that the unprecedented success of Asians is from their good looks? The first lesson to move in a successful direction is find someone that you admire who is successful, and just do what they do. Warren Buffet is a good example. Success doesn't always just pertain to money, you need to work at something to be the best you can be, and the money will follow.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Yeah, you people told us there'd be people starving in the streets as a result of welfare reform in the 1990s.

Do you really think that nonsense is going to play AGAIN??? Seriously????

 

Like the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror", the "War on Poverty" needs rethought. You can not just keep throwing money at a symptom, and expect to fix the illness.

 

That's an oversimplification and not entirely true. Some people have a better chance at "making it" than others.

 

The causes are obvious, as you just pointed out.

People earn pay commensurate to their abilities.

Thats it.

Everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness. Their pursuits are their responsibility.

The constitution does not ensure equal results in ones pursuit of happiness.

Stay in school, get an education its the only way.

 

You seem to be ignoring the after effects of being denied and disparaged in individual liberty which can also result in a denial and disparagement of privileges and immunities which can lead to forms of poverty; in other words, our War on Drugs has a tendency to increase poverty due to those factors.

 

Absolutely right, Web... it's all about votes, and power. This whole fraudulent, Libocrat power-play began back in the 1930's with the great democrat-socialist "god" Franklin D. Roosevelt, and it is even more virulent and ruinous today under King Hussein.

Welfare should be reserved for those who are NOT ABLE to support themselves because of tragic illness or disability. Instead, every ward-heeling scumbag hyperlib politician has leveraged the ever larger "welfare vote" to extend their smothering control over the economy, slowly turning the United States into a nation of brainwashed, helpless cattle who depend on the government to do everything for them....

 

Why can we afford a poverty inducing War on Drugs during times of lowering Taxes and prosecuting a War on Poverty?

 

That is not it at all. People earn what the market values their labor. They could have tremendous abilities but if the market doesn't value them they receive no pay.

 

It's the abuse of drugs that turn people's head to mush that is contributing to poverty.

Drug zombies make bad employees.

 

Which is great. My cousin is an expert Guitar Hero player, but he doesn't deserve 6 figures for that ability.

 

Give a man a fish and he'll assuage his hunger. Teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for life. Training is good. Handouts are bad. Donations for the poor belong in the private sector, not in government. I think it is great for a church to sponsor a soup kitchen. I hate the concept of government doing it. Government should concentrate on equality, not moving wealth around.

 

Yup. We've dug ourselves into a hole by handing out too many fish. Now when we go up to a guy and offer to teach him how to fish, he looks at us like we're nuts and walks back to the free fish table.​

 

That's almost a straw man argument, and would be if it turns out that politicans didn't even pitch these programs as fixes.

We don't have a single supporter of these programs in this thread saying they're meant to "fix" poverty. Their purpose is to make being a baby mama with no income a reasonably comfortable lifestyle. And these programs are successful in that goal.

Again, it is generally felt that legalizing drugs will have a net result of dramatically increasing poverty. If you think you can successfully challenge the prevalent view on this matter than by all means start a new thread on the topic instead of begging the question in this thread. Nobody is falling for it anyway.

You keep wanting to say things like that. But the reality is that it generally isn't a man, it's typically a woman, and she has a bunch of little kids and has no way to support them and often no one to help her. When it comes to any specific law the liberals can clobber you with that point, and if you don't have a solution for the children question you lose.

 

You got a point. Unfortunately, I can only think of three options:

(1) Assist her.
(2) Assume responsibility for her and/or her kids.
(3) Let her deal with it alone.​

The former assumes she wants to carry her own weight, last one ain't gonna fly. So we often end up in the middle. Sucks, but there we are.​

 

And yet welfare children often grow up to be welfare mothers themselves.

In that respect the bleeding heart libs are the worst enemy of children because they are condemning them of a life of hell on earth.

 

You folks must be ignorant of progressive economics. Don't you know that for every $1.00 spent on food stamps and the like, we get $1.67 back into the economy??? So quit knocking welfare. It happens to be our secret weapon for bringing about a future economic boom. We merely need to spend a few trillions of dollars on welfare and we can then realize that magical 67% increase in wealth. Print up 10 trillion or so, pass it out to whoever's vote you want to purchase, and presto - no more national debt. It's incredible!

 

The truth is the poverty industrial complex is one. Those that depend on the poor staying poor have no interest in eliminating it. Why would they the government agencies and people, charities and even law enforcement would lose money and their reason to exist in some cases. They just enough successes to appear like they are helping the problem while they keep the status quo.

I looked at the numbers before the War on Poverty the cases of poverty were going down, why? People had an incentive to work the mutual aid societies as a big source of care would never support a woman getting pregnant all the time and who had two baby-daddys who were shiftless losers. In my great grandfathers day he worked with a big mutual aid society in Milwaukee and the usual help for a poor couple with children was get the man a job with a members company, give support long enough so they can get on their feet and if the mother had no young children (not school age at 8 years old or older) she was given at least part-time work maybe in a store a member owned or with something they worked with. If the woman was irresponsible and wouldn't change the children would go to an orphanage or sent to relatives and they would move to sever her rights as unfit, while they helped the children in the worse cases.

Now what is the incentive to work now the benefits are generous and there is no expection on the woman to live better in fact the more babies she has the more she gets. And they make it hurt to get married to a man. They in fact killed black families with welfare and many other policies in many areas.

I can extend this to other groups show me one group that was helped in large measure by the system to get off the system the homeless is one, rural poor, foster children when they turn eighteen and others?