STOSSEL: The war on poverty has not worked

[Karee 4,191]

He wants people to get help. If you can find a speech that shows Obama wants someone to be dependent on the govt teet, I'll concede.

Yeah, like he's gonna come out and sat that. Making folks dependent on govt. assistance isn't helping them. It's hurting them.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Yeah, like he's gonna come out and sat that. Making folks dependent on govt. assistance isn't helping them. It's hurting them.

But some here believe it so strongly. I'm just saying there should be something since folks are thoroughly convinced this dude wants wants to enslave the country to welfare.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Who or what are 'the Deniers'? Is that like the Avengers?

Welcome to the club. This is the question that NB has failed to answer as many times as he's been asked. I don't see that changing.

But back to the topic at hand: FOX News has now declared the war on poverty failed and that means that the war on poverty has failed. End of discussion. At least for the right wingers, it is. It is true that the FOX sheep cannot and will not ever question their network. Or any part of their echo chamber, for that matter.

[Curmudgeon 227]

Yeah, like he's gonna come out and sat that. Making folks dependent on govt. assistance isn't helping them. It's hurting them.

How do you make someone dependent on government assistance? Are you suggesting that 'government' somehow prevents these people from looking after themselves? What's in it for the political elite? It really isn't a very logical point of view.

[Curmudgeon 227]

Simple. It equals votes. The same reason that they institute programs that encourage illegal immigration. More voters down the road.

It's hard to take away freebies once they are given. Wouldn't want to upset a loyal political base. Never mind the 17 trillion dollar debt.

You have proof that people on government assistance not only vote, but vote for a particular party or candidate? I've heard this tale before, but it's just not believable. Lots of people in poverty simply do not vote, period. I would have thought it was a very poor way to garner sure votes but this rumor keeps getting spread as justification for what? Not providing welfare for those that need it?

[Karee 4,191]

How do you make someone dependent on government assistance? Are you suggesting that 'government' somehow prevents these people from looking after themselves? What's in it for the political elite? It really isn't a very logical point of view.

Easy, you give people money and govt. benefits for doing little more than generating more future govt. dependents. It's a cycle that needs to stop. I don't have an issue with temporary govt. assistance. I have an issue when it becomes a way of life that is passed down from generation to generation.

Just because you disagree with the opinion, doesn't make it illogical. Quite frankly it's an immature argument on your part.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

How do you make someone dependent on government assistance? Are you suggesting that 'government' somehow prevents these people from looking after themselves? What's in it for the political elite? It really isn't a very logical point of view.

Part one: Basically by providing welfare and food stamps, folks believe that the people on assistance have no will or desire to further themselves along in life. Like they want to live that way for the rest of their lives. There are some who abuse the system, but I've never met someone balling on the government teet.

You have proof that people on government assistance not only vote, but vote for a particular party or candidate? I've heard this tale before, but it's just not believable. Lots of people in poverty simply do not vote, period. I would have thought it was a very poor way to garner sure votes but this rumor keeps getting spread as justification for what? Not providing welfare for those that need it?

Part 2. Only poor minorities are on govt assistance. This means that that block of people will only vote for Democrats

[Karee 4,191]

You have proof that people on government assistance not only vote, but vote for a particular party or candidate? I've heard this tale before, but it's just not believable. Lots of people in poverty simply do not vote, period. I would have thought it was a very poor way to garner sure votes but this rumor keeps getting spread as justification for what? Not providing welfare for those that need it?

I'm sure this wont be good enough for you.

Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to have received food stamps at some point in their lives—a participation gap that echoes the deep partisan divide in the U.S. House of Representatives, which on Thursday produced a farm bill that did not include funding for the food stamp program.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/

Part 2. Only poor minorities are on govt assistance. This means that that block of people will only vote for Democrats

I just want it noted that you're the one the brought race into the conversation, as usual.

[Curmudgeon 227]

Easy, you give people money and govt. benefits for doing little more than generating more future govt. dependents. It's a cycle that needs to stop. I don't have an issue with temporary govt. assistance. I have an issue when it becomes a way of life that is passed down from generation to generation.

Just because you disagree with the opinion, doesn't make it illogical. Quite frankly it's an immature argument on your part.

I don't call it illogical simply because I don't agree. I call it illogical because it is. There are better ways to get party political support that can be counted on than providing welfare programs. Better and cheaper. There is no certainty that someone will vote the way you want them to just because you provide a relief program for them, none at all, in fact I would anticipate that there is a very low participation rate in elections from people in this circumstance. Prove otherwise and you might get some attention, but all that I know about poverty tells me that these days, very few of them vote, period.

[Curmudgeon 227]

I'm sure this wont be good enough for you.

I just want it noted that you're the one the brought race into the conversation, as usual.

Not really, no. That shows that because someone has had food stamps at some point they are twice as likely to vote democrat. A) that doesn't prove that they are long term dependent on government assistance and B) It doesn't tell us whether there is a causal relationship between being on food stamps and voting Democrat. It's a weak argument, that providing benefits develops Democratic ties. What is more likely to influence voting patterns is if someone feels that the person they vote for will significantly improve their conditions, not just keep them in poverty, however nice you think that being on government aid might be.

[Karee 4,191]

I don't call it illogical simply because I don't agree. I call it illogical because it is.

As you would say, "Prove it" I'm not getting into one of your endless circle jerks. I've made an argument and backed it up with some evidence. You've done no such thing. I'm sure the next thing on your list is to try and discredit the sources I've provided.

You can change user names all you like, but your modus operandi is always the same.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I'm sure this wont be good enough for you.

I just want it noted that you're the one the brought race into the conversation, as usual.

Then tell me, who are you talking about?

[Karee 4,191]

Then tell me, who are you talking about?

People on endless govt. assistance. Are you not paying attention, or is your need to make everything about race interfering with your reading comprehension?

[Curmudgeon 227]

As you would say, "Prove it" I'm not getting into one of your endless circle jerks. I've made an argument and backed it up with some evidence. You've done no such thing. I'm sure the next thing on your list is to try and discredit the sources I've provided.

You can change user names all you like, but your modus operandi is always the same.

You want proof? Try this, it's up to date and topical

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hit-by-poverty-ferguson-reflects-the-new-suburbs/

Nationwide, the poor have lower participation rates in elections and this appears to be the case in Ferguson as well. While the city has about 15,000 residents 18 or older, only about 1,350 votes were cast in last April's mayoral election, in which Mayor James Knowles III ran unopposed. Furthermore, in the last city council election held in 2013 there were about 1,500 votes cast. In 2011, one city councilman won his seat with a grand total of 72 votes.

The poorer you are, the less likely you are to participate in elections at all. How does that fit your theory that Democrats want more and more government dependents?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

People on endless govt. assistance. Are you not paying attention, or is your need to make everything about race interfering with your reading comprehension?

Sorry, from my time here, only minorities are referred to as being on govt asst.