PDA

View Full Version : Another Census shows stagnant poverty levels, again


troysvihl
03-12-2001, 09:56 PM
Well, the census figures have been released, and the poverty rate stayed at a stagnant 13.3%, despite trillions being spent on welfare. Johnson started the "War on Poverty" about 30 years agon, and ever since it began, the poverty level stalled in it's previous two decade decrease and held fast at little more than 13%. (the previous two decades saw a drop in the poverty rate from the low 40's to 13.5%. since the war on poverty, we've got a whole two tenths of a percent drop to show for the trillions and trillions of dollars spent)

Meanwhile, more and more taxes are taken to fund these bullshit programs, thereby, decreasing the countrie's economic performance and ensuring poverty. (the very thing those programs try to fight.)

I think it's about time that America wake up and realize how much of a failure social programs are. It's time to cut them all, and let people decide what they want to do with their own money.

Not only does these programs not work on a practicle aspect, they are also wrong on a human rights aspect. No one has a right to your money, no matter how great his need. If you want to give it of your own free volition, then fine by me, but don't try to force others to do the same.

bob
03-12-2001, 10:07 PM
Despite the huge cuts in welfare under Clinton

troysvihl
03-12-2001, 10:15 PM
lol. yeah right. you show me where those "huge cuts" acctually materialized into less spending.

bob
03-12-2001, 10:26 PM
If you make more money you spend more, save more, and pay off your debts.

If a fact is unclear I will look it up but welfare was cut under Clinton and they went to work. Give credit where it is due.

LawyerRon
03-12-2001, 10:30 PM
California used to be the Welfare capitol of the U.S.

Govt. Wilson helped bring and end to it. Sure, welfare exists in Calif, but it's very limited and it ENDS. I read an article a while back about how the welfare affectionados are moving out of Calif. and back east to one of the midwest states (poor state) although I don't recall which state.

bob
03-12-2001, 10:36 PM
LawyerRon Welcome back.

A lot less hate in debate right now......hope it can continue.

troysvihl
03-12-2001, 11:45 PM
clinton gets no credit in my book. the federal spending levels are higher than ever.

yea, supposedly the wellfare roles were reduced all over the country on local and federal levels, but I've yet to see an example of a wellfare budget (either state or federal) that acctually decreased as a result. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that you can find no examples of wellfare budgets decreasing which led to a reduction in the tax burden.

drisley
03-13-2001, 12:45 AM
I might not remember this correctly, but wasn't the Clinton "welfare cut" basically a Republican item? It was part of Gingrich's Contract With America and the Repubs basically pressured Clinton into signing the thing.

Its against human nature for welfare to work. You give a failure free stuff, he'll never bail himself out.

bob
03-13-2001, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by drisley
I might not remember this correctly, but wasn't the Clinton "welfare cut" basically a Republican item? It was part of Gingrich's Contract With America and the Repubs basically pressured Clinton into signing the thing.

Its against human nature for welfare to work. You give a failure free stuff, he'll never bail himself out.


Clinton signed the welfare reform bill. That was bipartison .

Bush just does not know what the definition of bipartison IS

troysvihl
03-13-2001, 01:56 AM
depends on what your definition of "is" is.

LawyerRon
03-13-2001, 07:42 AM
Welfare reform in Calif was a Republican effort and happened long before Clinton was on the scene.

bob, I can bring a little "hate" to the table if you get bored.