How much extra in taxes would you pay to eliminate poverty?

[fskimospy]

Nor does your vainly attempting to validate it.
What your definition infers is that it is okay to be permanently dependent on being given free money for life. I see nothing admirable about this.

My definition makes no value judgments, it just reflects the actual amount of money available to someone to meet their needs while your definition does not. I find my definition more useful.

Are you inferring that the purpose of the Great Society was to keep the poor permanently dependent on said programs, and for them to believe that that they can rightfully think of money they did not earn as a part of their income?

If so, then you really are the gift that keeps on giving.

No, I'm saying that you made a specific statement as to the intent of those programs and said that it was an explicitly stated rule. This runs contrary to the stated purpose of many of these programs so I asked for a source. I assume this means you don't have one.

If it is your opinion that things should be that way that's fine, but you shouldn't try to claim an external source for validity if you don't actually have it.

And fail heartily.

Uhmm, ok.

So much for reducing poverty and producing citizens that contribute rather than become a permanent burden. You and i have very different definitions of reducing poverty. I want people to be able to raise themselves out of poverty to be able to live on their own steam. You just want them to live on the government dole permanently and think everything coming up roses.

Thanks for clarifying.

This is a straw man. Recognizing the fact that those programs are not designed to reduce poverty as a first order effect is just describing reality. Nowhere did I say what my preferred path for the poor was, and I certainly didn't say that I want people to live on the government dole permanently.

I feel like I've engaged you in a straightforward and respectful manner, so if you're going to argue against my position please stick to what I actually argued.

Then you have just proven my point all along. You and other progressives want nothing more that to make keep the poor permanently dependent on social programs paid for by hard working taxpayers.

See above.

And I showed evidence to the contrary. More people are in poverty and living on government assistance. Not exactly a win to me. Or most people with common sense.

That actually isn't evidence to the contrary as it does not control for any confounding variables. Or at least, it's extremely poor evidence to the contrary.

You cannot cure the problem by hiding the symptoms, and permanently having people live off the government tit. Most reasonable people would understand that.

This seems to be another one of these statements of principles that isn't backed by any evidence, combined with another straw man.

All you have shown here is that liberals care nothing of values and standards while admitting that they have no evidence of alternative methods simply because they haven't tried them.

I've done none of those things.

Your results, by your admission, is that you consider being given something for nothing a good and righteous thing, and on a permanent basis.
Your results show that it does not matter than people are in poverty, as long as they feel good in the process.

Like I said - the gift that keeps on giving...

I said none of those things. All you're putting out here is statements of your values, of how you think the world should function based on your ideology. None of it is backed by any evidence.

 

[glenn1]

Basically the takers vs. the makers trend.

If only the poor had the same work ethic that progressives have when it comes to imagining how they'll spend other people's tax money.

 

[werepossum]

If only the poor had the same work ethic that progressives have when it comes to imagining how they'll spend other people's tax money.

LMAO!

You, sir, have won the Internet.

 

[piasabird]

I don't think the government can punch its way our of wet paper bag!