Why do cons say we've spend billions on the "war on poverty" and have nothing to show for it?

First of all, the "war on poverty" ended when LBJ stepped out of office.

Second of all, poverty dropped substancially during the liberal 60s and during the Clinton years. It stayed the same under Reagan and went up under both Bush's.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/h...

Third of all, government has fought crime for hundreds of years and yet we still have it. That doesn't mean you stop trying. There will always be poverty, but by investing in education, job training, and temporary safety nets, you ensure that it is kept at a minimum.

Magneto,

It is worse since Bush Jr stepped into office. The poverty rate however was dropping under Clinton and it dropped the most under JFK's New Frontier and LBJ's Great Society social programs.

It probably drop the most with FDR's New Deal programs but the data does not go that far back.

Once again trovee, you prove yourself inept when quoting statistics. To wit

Years Party in the White House Poverty Rate
Start End

1960 - 1963 Dem-Kennedy 21.9 19.5
1964 - 1968 Dem-Johnson 19.0 12.8
1969 - 1974 Rep-Nixon 12.1 11.2
1975 - 1980 Dem-Carter 12.3 13.0
1981 - 1988 Rep - Reagan 14.0 13.0
1989 - 1992 Rep-Bush 12.8 14.8
1993 - 2000 Dem-Clinton 15.1 11.3
2001 - Present Rep-Bush 11.7 TBD

As you can see, with Dems in the White House, poverty has decreases 3 times, and increased once. With Reps in the White House, poverty has decreases 2 times, and increased once. The current White House is still TBD.

So it seems that the party in power has little to do with poverty rates. Perhaps it has more to do with cyclical economic activity. But that is beyond your post hoc ergo propter hoc logical mindset.

Perhaps you can tell us why libs give less to charity than cons? Libs want the government to handle that little "problem", since citizens on the dole are more likely to vote for the politicians who give them their little stipend (i.e. dems). God forbid a lib should give out more of *HIS OWN* money to someone in need. After all, the government lib bureaucrat is *so much* more efficient in administering those handout programs.

People arent in poverty because the govt isnt doing enough. Theyre in poverty because THEY are not doing enough.

More and more it seems that our atheistic school systems arent a very good investment at all. If anything, we need to pull the plug on them and have a voucher system and make schools compete for tax dollars.

What I would like to see more of is subsidies for student loans, and student loan reform. Maybe like an interest forgiveness incentive program for when you graduate. Tuition costs are becoming outrageous.

It is called my taxes (the working man pays for welfare) Hmm someone must not work

The cons say that because they are lying ..... AGAIN!!!

Because we do spend billions every year on handouts to 'poor' people, and all we've done is taxed millions of working people to the point they can't afford basics like housing and medical care without a dual income.

Crime, interestingly has gone down in the last two decades - correllating with the fist generation to be born after Roe v Wade coming of age.

Maybe the 'war on poverty' was being waged the wrong way?

First of all they were wrong on saying that,I think they were trying to be opptimistic,in reality,it's now worse than before,there are more unwed mothers on welfare and having more children,more school drop outs,and more drugs being used in the neighborhoods bought with money provided by the government
The only point you have made with this is that there is a surge of dependancy during Dems in power to support individuals not willing to work,and the liberals are very liberal with the taxpayers money to provide it

Record numbers of blacks own their houses thanks to President Bush.

Clinton screwed blacks and Americans.

So why don't we all give up our jobs and depend on big brother to provide for us? Oh, yeah, the Soviets already tried that. Luckily, here, we can still depend on our own resourcefulness.

If the liberal social programs actually worked, why hasn't there been any impact since FDR?

Rightwing nuts tend to drop the ball when it comes to "war on" things. Just look at the war on drugs...that was an effective use of time and money wasn't it. I mean imagin if a right wing president had to fight a war against something really important like terrorism? We'd be screwed.