Hey libs, how's that war on poverty going?

Question

Trillions of dollars stolen from earners given to those unable or unwilling to work, yet we still have poverty.

Answer 1

They say poor people in America today live better than rich land-owners lived 500 years ago. I'd say the number of poor Americans is very small. I say the government should act to prevent anybody from sleeping in the street - both for the sake of the homeless and for the sake of the city that doesn't want to tolerate the homeless - but the government doesn't need to make people COMFORTABLE.

By the way, "cold, heartless Republicans" give much more money to charities than Democrats do. Look it up, Mr. Stereotype! LOL

I give to charity. I'd give more, but I have to pay taxes!

Answer 2

are you talking about trillions of dollars being spent in America? Well there are 300 million Americans, and about 35 million are below poverty. If we spent at least 2 trillion on the problem (which you assert) then each person below the poverty level has received almost $60,000. I honestly don't believe your statistics are correct, because if they were we would not have any poverty. If we had spent 3 trillion, every person below poverty would be a homeowner. You are full of crap.

Answer 3

Although not a liberal, I must say the war on poverty can be considered as much as a success as the war on drugs. Since both concepts go directly against the wishes of the wealthy elite, neither one has been effectively implemented. McCain in '08, unless he sells out before then.

Answer 4

If I heard what it acknowledged like then consistent with risk i ought to prefer to answer this further acceptable, regardless of if it type of feels tremendously reliable, and that i think of of i'd pay interest to it on activities... it form of feels a splash short and can particularly be like a a million:30 and optimal songs are approximately 2:00-4:00 minutes long... regardless of if evidently like it must be a reliable music... prefer I helped...

Answer 5

It's your guys who have been in office the past 7yrs.
Obviously, as they & their friends accumulate more wealth,
they have no idea of the poverty that has become the
middle class, not to mention the victims of Katrina.
Ask this question again at the end of next yr., hopefully
there will be some improvement, but with politicians
being what they are now, things are looking somewhat bleak.

Answer 6

Not well. Corporate welfare is stealing from the poor and undermining this effort. Enron-type guys (soul-free creatures which you might call "earners") put their friends into corporate power and keep stealing from taxpayers and shareholders alike while offshoring jobs. Soon the slums will be on the doorsteps of the mansions as the middle class disappears.

Answer 7

That was a socialist scam, no more useful or effective for the American people than Prohibition(alcohol and "war on drugs"), the "war on terror", or any other "war on *" instituted by our government. Both sides of this BS spectrum are out to fvck you and your family over, take your money and your land, and profit from the pimping of our military to foreign countries. Libs and Cons backing the current regime of "two-party rule"(a bullsh!t totalitarian con if I ever saw one) are the blind leading the blindfolded.
Capitalism is the quickest way to stratify the public according to arbitrary "wealth" valuation and set people against each other in mindless pissing contests. When humanity wakes up from these lies, maybe we'll actually get some real peace, love, and brotherhood..

Answer 8

Carefully thoughtful people try first to determine the facts of the world by watching the world, and then by reason, to consider what has been seen, thereby answering the question "What is?" Only when a rational person understands the facts of reality, in particular what he's up against, does he move to his moral sense in order to decide how to act.

Liberals are people who have confused the proper roles of perception, reason, and moral sense. Liberals try first to determine the facts of the world by using their moral sense, and they confuse the question of "What is fair?" with the question "What is?"

Liberals tend to be somewhat religious about their faulty metaphysical habits. Once they decide what "ought to be," they assume that in a "just" world that this is how things are, and whenever things aren't as they "ought to be," there must be a "villain" somewhere to bear the blame.

You can put a mountain of scientific evidence before a liberal to the effect that Life Isn't Fair because some people are born smarter, or otherwise better-made, than others... and the liberal won't even look at it. He's made up his mind by his flawed "moral sense first" methodology, and nothing you can do will shake his faith in its conclusions.

Consider the standard liberal canard of "human dignity"? What might this be? It isn't an organ, nor a hormone. It isn't biologically inherited. Liberals are fond of saying that all people have inherent human dignity, but in what does it inhere? The spleen, the liver? I propose that all of the next four statements are equally silly:

Wolf, you may not eat me, for I have Human Dignity.

Lightning, you may not strike me, for I have Human Dignity.

Earthquake, you may not shake my house down on top of me, for I have Human Dignity.

Fellow humans, you must provide for me and carry me along on your backs, worthless though I am to you, for I have Human Dignity.

Although none of those four statements is more cogent than any of the others, the last one is the only statement likely to have an impact on its speaker's fortunes. Why? It's because humans have minds able to hold social constructs, and human dignity is a social construct. Physical realities, such as race and gender, are not in that class.

Why would anyone construct the idea of "human dignity"? Basically, to get power. One has "human dignity" more or less by the permission of liberals, who may strip it at will from whomever they don't like: racists, for example. After the concept of "human dignity" becomes enforceable as "civil rights" laws, it thus behooves the prudent to retain the good will of liberals by not disagreeing with them about matters such as race, or else you might lose YOUR "human dignity" and get murdered by government agents.

What, after all, is the difference between a Rodney King and a Gordon Kahl? Rodney King, being Black, kept his "human dignity." Gordon Kahl, being White, lost his "human dignity" and, soon afterward, his life.

That's also the difference between James Byrd and (pick one) Ken Tillery, Patricia Stansfield, Jake Robel, or Sandra Roberts. All of them were killed by being dragged to their deaths along a highway behind a vehicle, and in every case the killers and the victim were of differing races, and yet James Byrd, the Black victim, is the only one who became famous and got a major reaction from our liberal dominated society. Why? Because, being Black, James Byrd was presumed to have "human dignity," whereas the other victims, being White, were presumed to have none.

If liberals had never gained the power to implement their social ideas, then most of the trouble that presently afflicts our world would not exist, and much of the trouble that is yet to come would never happen. That realization, or rather the fear that it will become generally known, is what is behind the liberal hostility to any scientific validation of the genetic role in heredity, especially in that of intelligence. It's why liberal sociologists continually insist, as each of their programs in succession fails, fails, fails..., that the reason is that they weren't "aimed" just right, and that if they would "focus" a bit better there suddenly would be miraculous results.

You'd think that over 40 years of failure would have corrected this nonsense, but liberals indeed grow hidebound. Maybe they are afraid that someone will hold them accountable for the mess that they have made of our society, and perhaps it is out of fear that they insist, so to speak, that the next bucket of gasoline will surely put out the fire, if only we first paint the bucket a different color.

Answer 9

Without poverty every economy on earth would collapse..

Liberals just recognise this horrible economic fact and try to make life easier for these people

Maybe republicans should as well.

Answer 10

You are about to find out when the superwealthy leave the country right after the american dollar crashes.....you will be one of the poor...and wishing you had supported the libs,,,,,,,