House chaplain forced out by Ryan

[dvdjs]

There you go, changing the goal posts again

Again, your should be aware that you came into the conversation late, and respect what the goalposts were, rather than assuming that they are whatever you think they should be.

The very clear goal was to get people out of poverty. If feeding people in poverty was the goal, we just would have set up a chain of soup kitchens for far less expenditure.

You should look at the programs - I do wonder just what @upant includes in his trillions.
If income were the issue, we might have continued AFDC.
If feeding the hungry were not the issues, we would not have WIC or SNAP.

 

[ProVobis]

Wonder if his being a Jesuit has something to do with it. Ever since I was pulled in by the traditionalists (Latin Mass, etc) I found much hostility between the two camps.

 

[upant]

In fact data show otherwise.

i think the graph luke posted (fig 4 second graph) shows it all

the war on poverty started in the mid to late 60’s, so the drop from 1959 -1965 most likely wasn’t due to the war on poverty. 15% after johnson declared it and 13.5% in 2015. not much change for trillions of dollars

note the nice up ramp under obama

we need a better idea.

The problem is that folks like @upant and the politicians they support tend to double down on pet programs or policies for ideological reasons without really considering their actual impact. T

i have no pet policies, i just want change. what we did isn’t working and that is the actual impact.

a graph to consider; what we pay goes up but no real improvment

You should look at the programs - I do wonder just what @upant includes in his trillions.

this is for 2016 & 2017

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Theo520]

What I would say is that efforts to reduce poverty have had mixed results depending on the population under consideration and the nature of the intervention. We should be able to learn from the past to improve our efforts in the future.

I don’t think people say all efforts were in vain, but en-masse, they have failed to have an impact.

The war on drugs is different than the war on poverty, though I would agree it provides many additional examples of failed programs that were expensive. Making drugs legal is a high risk gambit, it will lead to increased level of addiction and the harm that causes. Your quote ignored that harm which comes with it’s own costs to society… I agree we don’t have a good answers there.

I think we do a fair job in providing equality of opportunity, it will never be perfect. I think it’s up to state and local to provide the safety net on the basics, they will spend the money with more care and strive harder to get people self sufficient. State and local Govt will do better at stopping people who are gaming the system.

You misread the tax bill since it only reduced taxes for the poor. Our corp taxes are now more competitive internationally, and that does matter.

Prosperity is really our only way forward, and candidly it will be at the expense of other countries whom we have intentionally been subsidizing through our trade policies.

Prosperity means continued low unemployment, which will have a huge impact on poverty and minority citizens. A scenario helps explain - the long term prospects for a black teen who can now find a job are significantly better than his unemployed counterpart.

• Which one is more likely to get pulled into illegal activities?
• Which one is more likely to later be hired for a living wage job, because they have some job skills and an employment record?
• Which one will likely see the value in continuing their education?
• Which one is likely to be off welfare, out of poverty?

By trade practices that export fewer jobs and immigration enforcement, we benefit our poor working class the most. They can then have the ‘American Dream’ that was prevalent in the past. I don’t care if the rich also make money, they’ll figure that out regardless of our trade and immigration policies. I much prefer that the Rich are forced to hire from our pool of citizens, even if illegal immigrants are better workers.

 

[dvdjs]

this is for 2016 & 2017

Excellent.
So you are looking at programs that are aimed to mitigate deprivation.
To judge their efficacy you need to look at the adjusted index, not the index that focuses on income. See my post #70.

 

[upant]

So you are looking at programs that are aimed to mitigate deprivation.

yup, who are they helping?

what are the limits? are we helping the needy or also buying votes?

this is an interesting series of videos. it is old and the links are dead-ends but the idea is on target. get the federal government out of the game.

 

[dvdjs]

yup, who are they helping?

Look at the data I presented from the serious, linked articles.

 

[upant]

Look at the data I presented from the serious, linked articles.

what are the eligibility requirements for some of these programs?

the poverty level for a family of 3 is $20,780 for a family of 3

to qualify for the eitc you can earn $46,010 for a family of 3

to qualify for the snap you can earn $26,600 for a family of 3

how much would we save if we cut back these programs to help the truly needy and not use the system as a way to buy votes.

get the feds out of the game,

 

[Luke6_37]

The war on drugs is different than the war on poverty

According to the article you cited, the two are directly related, especially for the African American community.

 

[dvdjs]

how much would we save

We could save more by not providing the programs at all.
We could eliminate WIC and SNAP.
But we probably would also need to forgo the cry crocodile tears over Alfie Evans.

 

[Luke6_37]

i have no pet policies, i just want change.

Change can be for the worse too.

We already tried the “get the federal government out of it” approach. That’s what we did before the New Deal. Don’t make the mistake of romanticizing the past, a lot of people lived retched lives and died from malnutrition & related illnesses. That is what fueled the rise of Marxist and Socialist ideologies. You don’t really want to go back to that.

Broad generalizations like the ones you are making are recipes for disaster. First you need to understand the population you are targeting, then the nature of the problem you are trying to fix, and finally an honest evaluation of the magnitude of the effect you can realistically expect to achieve.

Sometimes you can’t fx the problem. The best you can do is mitigate it’s impact.

 

[upant]

We could save more by not providing the programs at all.

We could eliminate WIC and SNAP.

But we probably would also need to forgo the cry crocodile tears over Alfie Evans.

a typical left response. the way of the liberal is the only way, anything else is elimination.

why eliminate these programs when you can just eliminate the politics in it and save money.

did you watch the videos?

Change can be for the worse too.

We already tried the “get the federal government out of it” approach.

you don’t think the states could handle it? typical big government answer, only uncle sam can do it.

 

[dvdjs]

a typical left response.

Can you prove this statement, or are just making stuff up?

did you watch the videos?

Of course not.

 

[SuperLuigi]

how do you reconcile your catholic faith with these democratic platform items:

pre-marital sex

condoms and birth control

the morning after pill on demand

gay marriage

government-funded abortion.

lgbt rights trump religious freedom

transgender bathrooms and showers

contraception mandate against faith-based groups like little sisters of the poor

no role of religion in government

appoint pro-abortion judges

no or limited school choice

etc.

Whine about racism, the poor and sexism and pretend those things are prevalent and greater than all of the above.

 

[Theo520]

According to the article you cited, the two are directly related, especially for the African American community.

I gave three perspectives on the War On Poverty, I didn’t say I agreed with everything in all three.
I also explained what they were missing from their economic analysis of the drug war.

 

[upant]

Can you prove this statement, or are just making stuff up?

would you really care? you went straight to elimination, watch the video for some insight

you think liberals believe the right has answers for social ills?

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Ryan is not that impulsive.

Well one does not know what one will do when one is on an outward path.
Since he is not seeking reelection, his vector just might have changed. He just might be doing his part to create enough chaos in his wake.

 

[dvdjs]

you think liberals believe the right has answers for social ills?

I don’t know about ™liberals.
I do know that I am happy to discuss issues with sincere people, who avoid lobbing labels and generalities.

watch the video for some insight

I am happy to read scholarly work for insight.
YouTube is a not a highly regarded venue for the dissemination of scholarly work.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why did the GOP pass it? I think its because most Congressional Republicans are “Prosperity Gospel” Christians who believe wealth is a sign of God’s favor and blessing. It doesn’t matter how you acquire it as long as you have it.

Why don’t you show us the poll demonstrating that a majority of Repubs in Congresss believe in this. This is a pretty strong charge and, frankly, I see no possibility that it’s true.

 

[sallybutler]

From Wikipedia

Members of the 111th United States Congress - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The top five religious affiliations in the 111th Congress were Roman Catholic (30.1%), Baptist (12.4%), Methodist (10.7%), Jewish (8.4%), and Presbyterian (8.1%).[3] Protestant denominations have held a large majority throughout congressional history, reflecting American’s traditional demographics. In the 111th Congress, 54.7% of seats were held by members of Protestant denominations.

45 Jews served in the 111th Congress. Eleven representatives and six senators were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Senator Olympia Snowe, as well as Representatives John Sarbanes, Zack Space, Gus Bilirakis, Dina Titus, Niki Tsongas and Melissa Bean are Orthodox Christians.

In 2007, Keith Ellison of Minnesota became the first practicing Muslim to become a member of the United States Congress. He was joined by André Carson of Indiana following a special election on March 11, 2008. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Hank Johnson of Georgia became the first two Buddhists to be elected to the United States Congress on November 7, 2006. Johnson is a member of the Soka Gakkai movement and Hirono is a member of the Jodo Shinshu sect, although she is non-practicing. Both are Japanese Buddhist oriented.

Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Representatives Walt Minnick (D-Idaho) and Pete Stark (D-CA) were the only Unitarian Universalists that served in the 111th Congress. In a response to a March 2007 survey from the Secular Coalition for America, Rep. Pete Stark became the only open atheist in the history of Congress.[4] One member of the 111th Congress is a Quaker, Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ).

Nine members of the 111th Congress were categorized Not Given / Unspecified / Unavailable / Don’t Know.

Hawaii is the only state that currently holds a majority non-Christian House delegation; both representatives Mazie Hirono and Colleen Hanabusa are Buddhists."