Give A Hand Up not A handout, Lets Make Taxpayers Out Of Taxeaters
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
I don't understand Keynesian math, so you'll have to explain how the poverty rate was reduced by 50% when the percentage of Americans in 1965 (15%) remains 15%, 50 years later today.
The purpose of the "war on poverty," he said, was to make "taxpayers out of taxeaters." Its slogan was "Give a hand up, not a handout." When Lyndon Johnson signed the landmark legislation into law, he declared: "The days of the dole in our country are numbered."
President Kennedy and Johnson's intention for the war on poverty was to get the poor off the government dole and become productive tax paying citizens, clearly, given the amount of people dependent on the government today and the number of workers not paying federal taxes, the war on poverty has failed.
Your liberal what if math is a joke.
25k? nope, poverty level is $11,490.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html
hey beenthere..notice my use of citation along with my claim
they also choose to direct their employees to programs such as SNAP and WELFARE..
EDIT: which we pay for
other programs that were not specifically part of the official war on poverty but which were designed to combat poverty anyway (heating assistance, reaganphones, school lunch programs, the earned income tax credit, etc) make the war on poverty even more successful.
bucky - what's a reaganphone..is that like an obamaphone?
correct and it has been proven that children who receive school breakfast and lunches learn better and achieve more..dare i say..stay in school longer?
..and you posting a thread without citation is a bigger joke because we all know it came from "the blaze"..
nothing goes down without subsidy and for health it goes up..
subsidy = monetary portion of invoice
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So the Walton family will have to start being net contributors?
If the Blaze reported that 2+2 equaled 4, would you argue that it was wrong?
[video=youtube;K8E_zMLCRNg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg[/video]
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Keynes worked on the assumption we could accurately and consistently predict human behavior. If you need a quote from his writings that say that exactly, then it won't happen. If you have a basic understanding of the theory, then you understand and are just being obtuse. Alvin Roth is a recent Nobel winner in economics that explains this flaw much better than I can. Hint, Paul Krugman disagrees. Of course, he calls Krugman's ideas outdated, simplistic and naive, that had to leave a mark knowing he won a Nobel Prize because of this opinion.
Yep, just an assumption. Just like the data that says what poverty would be is just an assumption, Just as your 50% is an assumption. That was my point, the actual number would be unquantifiable. Even if your assumption is correct, the numbers are off by 50% then, right? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. That the study that Buck posted has correct assumptions or are you agreeing with me?
Life training was a lazy way of saying skills that are marketable, understanding credit and how paying 28% compounded interest affects you. Things along those lines that are not covered in school. It IS very broad. I'm not pretending to know exactly which skill sets are needed to be self-sufficient and would imagine it's case dependent. One size fits all really doesn't fit all. So I took the shortcut and said life training, if you want to debate which training that needs to be mandated, maybe someone else will take that up. I'm against one sized fits all solutions.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I have to disagree and use college tuition as my argument. Since Hope and Pell grants started, tuition has skyrocketed.
Do little research, because you wont take anyone's word for it. Compare the percentage of increases done by President Obama, and then compare them to President Bush's increases.
I need to post citations that backup quotes by President Johnson, really!
And if you look at the bottom of the graph I posted, it say US Census Bureau, I couldn't find any from the Huffington Post, my apologies.
That is precisely what I am implying.
My remedy would be to lower everyone's marginal tax rate, put a moratorium on capital gains, responsibly reduce the amount of job killing federal regulations and put people back to work. Then I would ease the poor off government programs by giving them incentives to attend trade schools or other forms of higher education.
Now, what is your plan, more unemployment, disability and food stamps?
Why not just give every man woman and child $10 million, then force them to invest that money in low risk Government bonds? We can just print the money up overnight and start issuing checks. Then everyone will have enough wealth so that no one will ever have to worry about having enough forever, for generations to come.
Why go about it half assed expecting great things to happen when all you are giving is barely enough for peopel to make it? lets make everyone really wealthy by handing out the cashola.
screw minimum wage, there will be no need for anyone to ever work again when we are all getting half a million per year in interest.
A perfect plan if you ask me. What could possibly go wrong?
Why, because if you gave people that money all at once. what in the world would the democrats have to run on?
Similar threads
