Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

The War On Poverty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The War On Poverty

    It has always been my contention that the Democrat party depends deeply on keeping enough people dependent on what they promise to hand out so that they can get reelected. We are now 50 years into Johnson's war on poverty and are worse off than when we started. I believe this is intentional and the Democrats have no will or motivation to reduce the number of poor in this country. They simply continue to string the poor along with the line that "we care about you and those mean Republicans want to take away your freebies." It seems to work.

    This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Baines Johnsons proclamation of a war on poverty, and the progress in this theater has not been encouraging. Trillions of dollars have been spent, and the number of Americans living in poverty is higher today than it was in 1964, while the poverty rate has held steady at just under one in five. That contrasts unpleasantly with the trend before President Johnson declared his war: The poverty rate had been dropping since the end of World War II. That progress came to a halt as President Johnsons expensive and expansive vision began to be implemented in earnest, which coincided with the tapering of the postwar boom. By the 1970s, the poverty rate was headed upward. It declined a bit during the Reagan years, crested and receded again in the 1990s, and resumed its melancholy ascent around the turn of the century.
    The Fifty-Year War | National Review Online

  • #2
    Re: The War On Poverty

    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    It has always been my contention that the Democrat party depends deeply on keeping enough people dependent on what they promise to hand out so that they can get reelected. We are now 50 years into Johnson's war on poverty and are worse off than when we started. I believe this is intentional and the Democrats have no will or motivation to reduce the number of poor in this country. They simply continue to string the poor along with the line that "we care about you and those mean Republicans want to take away your freebies." It seems to work.



    The Fifty-Year War | National Review Online
    Oh, I am well aware that you honestly believe this about the democrats. And it is within the realm of reason, given politics are involved here, and the need for power and holding onto the power. Yet I just cannot be convinced that this is a willful, thought out strategy by the dems. I think it is just an accusation from the right. But is a non fact.

    I have felt that the republicans represented business interests so strongly that they allowed business to bankrupt America. I mean, I feel that, but it may be a non fact as well. Yet the fact is, globalization is bankrupting this nation. Lost tax revenue, safety net spending soaring to unheard of levels. Depression era jobless rates, with most new jobs being non living wage jobs, which affects safety net spending. This is the fact of what is happening, regardless of who deserves the blame for these great changes in America.

    ?


    • #3
      Re: The War On Poverty

      I'm not even sure there is such a thing as a war on poverty -- yes, poverty still exists, but the federal government has created a plethora of social programs to subsidize millions of individuals. What we really have is more a war on unequal distribution of wealth, so federal, state and local governments are now targeting wealthy, successful and middle class citizens for the greater good.

      ?


      • #4
        Re: The War On Poverty

        LBJ promised that the war on poverty would be an "investment" that would "return its cost manifold to the entire economy." But the country has invested $20.7 trillion in 2011 dollars over the past 50 years. What does America have to show for its investment? Apparently, almost nothing: The official poverty rate persists with little improvement.
        Robert Rector: How the War on Poverty Was Lost - WSJ.com

        Clearly something's not working at all. High time to re-evalute what it is we are doing, and how, and how to change it so that more people work their way up and out of poverty, rather than making that lifestyle cushy and all the harder to escape.

        Yes, I said cushy.

        What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox

        ?


        • #5
          Re: The War On Poverty

          Right up front there are a few truths about the Poverty we need to get out there for discussion. It is not that the article is necessarily wrong, but just that some fundamentals exist for us to evaluate.

          1. Charles Barkley was right, people have been voting for those who say they will do something about poverty for over 50 years now and that same demographic is still poor. We replaced hope and safety nets with entitlement and governmental slavery. We have spent Trillions, people are still poor. Some are not even feed.

          2. The goal posts on what it takes to not be in poverty are always on the move. At our nations founding poverty as a concept was wildly different than the Xbox generation of today. Basic necessity of existence has more to do with entitlement of luxury items than the basics survival. Free cell phones, low cost to free internet capability, discounts (the rest of us all subsidy) for the costs of utilities, TVs and cable, healthcare, etc. It all adds up in costs that someone else has to shoulder, or debt gets to include, or both. The point is, the more is given the more that is asked for... err, scratch asked for... demanded of others. There is no logical reason to conclude this trend will end anytime soon.

          3. The majority of the major city populaces of the US have been mostly Democrat run for those same 50 years, and just about all of them contribute to the reason we lead the planet in crime, incarceration rates, terrible government services standards, horrid health conditions, poor education standards, and of course running up fiscal debt. We are less than one generation away from the takers being in greater numbers than the producers.

          4. In shock to no one that was awake the day they taught history in history class... poverty has always existed in every society, in every economic model, and under every government type in all of the history for all we can find record on. Shh... don't tell liberals, even natives had class systems of haves and have nots. There has never been such a thing as equal distribution of resources... EVER. Some might be closer than others, but never truly achieved. You might be able to make a small shift here and there to effect the numbers but consistently the idea of solving poverty has always lead to more being poor. Government usually prospers. Lastly on this point, *there is no perfect system of economy, socialist or capitalist, that solves this issue.* Period. "Promise Zones" and taxing wealth has no more chance of working than Supply Side or Trickle down economics. All you can do is encourage what works for the majority of a populace, instead of chasing what never works for everyone in a populace.

          5. In an ultimate irony, it takes being wealthy in the first place to go tell a group that is poor that some other wealthy group is the reason they are poor. We showed this with classic American arrogance and hypocrisy with the "occupy" group exercising this very fact. While sipping Starbucks and banging away status updates on their Apple iPhones to Twitter and Facebook they would go yell at Wall Street. It is no wonder we are laughed at with unsurprising consistency.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: The War On Poverty

            Poverty is more than just a number on a bank statement that can be solved with a deposit by Big Brother, it's a state of mind that says "I can't...".

            Any program that doesn't address that state mind is doomed to failure, and any program that says "you can't..." without outside intervention will only exacerbate the problem.

            That is the essence of the War on Poverty.

            ?


            • #7
              Re: The War On Poverty

              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
              Oh, I am well aware that you honestly believe this about the democrats. And it is within the realm of reason, given politics are involved here, and the need for power and holding onto the power. Yet I just cannot be convinced that this is a willful, thought out strategy by the dems. I think it is just an accusation from the right. But is a non fact.
              Do you at least acknowledge that a party that exists exclusively to cater to the have not's at the expense of the haves, where it to actually succeed in turning the have not's into haves, would immediately render itself politically extinct, because the moment those have not's have something to defend from the government, they will vote accordingly?

              ?


              • #8
                Re: The War On Poverty

                50 years, increased minimum wage and other things to lift people out of poverty.

                They all failed and trillions flushed down the toilet to show for it.

                More people are in poverty now than 50 years ago.

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: The War On Poverty

                  Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                  Poverty is more than just a number on a bank statement that can be solved with a deposit by Big Brother, it's a state of mind that says "I can't...".

                  Any program that doesn't address that state mind is doomed to failure, and any program that says "you can't..." without outside intervention will only exacerbate the problem.

                  That is the essence of the War on Poverty.
                  Very well said -- and it is government entitlements that continue to enable many of those fall into poverty.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: The War On Poverty

                    Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                    50 years, increased minimum wage and other things to lift people out of poverty.

                    They all failed and trillions flushed down the toilet to show for it.

                    More people are in poverty now than 50 years ago.
                    Numerically more, but percentage wise I think it's about the same.

                    I guess there will always be that segment of population that has challenges in being successful, regardless of how much money on assistance is spent on them.

                    I'd still go with trying to teach them how to fish, and give them the tools and drive to succeed, and then they have a sense of accomplishment that they did in fact succeed. That could never be taken away from them, unlike government checks, which can.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: The War On Poverty

                      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                      Oh, I am well aware that you honestly believe this about the democrats. And it is within the realm of reason, given politics are involved here, and the need for power and holding onto the power. Yet I just cannot be convinced that this is a willful, thought out strategy by the dems. I think it is just an accusation from the right. But is a non fact.

                      I have felt that the republicans represented business interests so strongly that they allowed business to bankrupt America. I mean, I feel that, but it may be a non fact as well. Yet the fact is, globalization is bankrupting this nation. Lost tax revenue, safety net spending soaring to unheard of levels. Depression era jobless rates, with most new jobs being non living wage jobs, which affects safety net spending. This is the fact of what is happening, regardless of who deserves the blame for these great changes in America.
                      Business hasn't caused government to spend trillions on the "war on poverty". Government decided to do that all by itself. Every single entitlement program which actually IS bankrupting the country can be laid at the feet of the Democratic party. The Democratic party might well not even exist without the millions of people dependent upon government for their existence.

                      Now admittedly the Republicans during the very small time frame in the entitlement era when they had the power to do so, didn't do anything to eliminate that stupidity, but the simple fact there is too little will to do the right thing over the politically expedient thing. Frankly most Republicans are almost as much in love with power as Democrats.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: The War On Poverty

                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        Oh, I am well aware that you honestly believe this about the democrats. And it is within the realm of reason, given politics are involved here, and the need for power and holding onto the power. Yet I just cannot be convinced that this is a willful, thought out strategy by the dems. I think it is just an accusation from the right. But is a non fact.
                        It didn't take place in a vacuum, BD. Something very significant had recently occurred, and for very obvious reasons it did not bode well for the Democratic Party.

                        ?

                        Working...
                        X