Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[Foxfyre]

Yes. Sowell offers alternatives not unlike what many conservatives here are offering. You know, all those proposal and ideas that you are blowing off and then accuse others of having no plan? He has written numerous essays and books on the subject, and anybody who really cares about the poor, most especially the black poor, can learn a great deal by reading his stuff.

He starts with the premise that when you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Sometimes it is important NOT to try to fix something. Most especially trying to fix something that isn't broken will almost always create unintended problems and produce consequences that make the situation worse.

For the committed authoritarian central planner like Naggie, "having a plan" begins and ends with devising a "new and improved" Rube Goldberg gubmint program.

Anything less is tantamount to throwing gramma out into the street and the chiillllldrrreeeennnn starve.

She isn't alone. You run across committed leftists everywhere. They are in a fairly small minority, but they all seem to be very vocal, opinionated, judgmental, and are convinced they speak with much authority. And they are convinced that those of us who lean toward conservative values and see those as the best answer to address many if not most (even all) social problems in America--they see us as selfish, hateful, uncaring, uncharitable, and intent on punishing the pitiful poor.

The liberal feels righteous when they dictate 'conscience' to somebody else and most especially if they can forcibly confiscate another's property to give to somebody else. It is really easy to be generous with other people's money. As Maggie Thatcher once said though, sooner or later you run out of other people's money and usually find that nothing much has changed except many more people are poorer.

The conservative feels good when s/he rolls up the sleeves, wades in, and gets it done and ends up the day dirty, maybe even a bit bloodied, and bone tired but knows s/he left a situation better than it was. Charity to a conservative means voluntary giving of your own energy, gifts, and resources.

A fundamental principle of economics has never been effectively challenged by anybody. If you want something to decrease, tax, punish or penalize it.
If you want something to increase, subsidize it.

That principles also applies to much involving the 'poor'.

 

[signelect]

I think that when you are raised in an environment where success is not achieved or mentioned you can't learn how to achieve it. Those of us who have achieved some measure of what ever successes is don't take the time to teach it to those who don't know. You can be a brain surgeon if someone does not take the time to teach you and you can't teach what you don't know.

 

[Samson]

I think that when you are raised in an environment where success is not achieved or mentioned you can't learn how to achieve it. Those of us who have achieved some measure of what ever successes is don't take the time to teach it to those who don't know. You can be a brain surgeon if someone does not take the time to teach you and you can't teach what you don't know.

This is why I advocate sterilizing third generation poor.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think that when you are raised in an environment where success is not achieved or mentioned you can't learn how to achieve it. Those of us who have achieved some measure of what ever successes is don't take the time to teach it to those who don't know. You can be a brain surgeon if someone does not take the time to teach you and you can't teach what you don't know.

I think that's a huge part of the problem. Working with some Katrina refugees from New Orleans, I got to know two young sisters--I'm guessing twenty something or no more than early thirties--who told me that Katrina was terrible for many, but it was the best thing to ever happen to them. They had grown up in a 'ghetto' environment among people who didn't think, didn't dream, didn't aspire, didn't hope and their own brains had become dull and anesthecized. They didn't realize they were not part of the mainstream. It never occurred to them that government subsidies were not a way of life and something almost everybody got. They would almost have certainly lived their entire life in that kind of fog, probably got pregnant, maybe married, maybe not.

Transported to Houston and then Albuquerque, however, jobs were provided and they soon accumulated enough earnings to get out of the temporary housing provided and were moving toward complete self sufficiency. They were both intelligent enough to fairly quickly catch on to a different way of thinking, a different outlook on just about everything. The last I heard they had been provided vocational training, help to get their G.E.D.'s, and had moved on to better jobs in Colorado. Hoped to get some college.

Children should grow up seeing their parents get up in the morning, get cleaned up, go to work, and bring home a paycheck used to buy food, shelter, transportation, clothes, and maybe a few luxuries as well. They should not grow up seeing parents complain about their lot in life while depending on that government check to survive.

We all are informed and affected by experience, by example, or by what we are intentionally taught or choose to learn.

 

[logical4u]

All that does is address the symptoms, rather than the root cause.

The root cause is philosophical, not that I harbor any illusion that you can comprehend this.

So someone with no basic education, trying to raise 3 kids alone and working two jobs should give up her refrigerator and her mode of transportation to and from those jobs because she hasn't "earned" it? Gotcha. I'm sure such a mother sits around wringing her hands that she should take a more "philosophical" approach to life.

How about the mother setting priorities for children:
education
job
1 dream
own place
romance
in that order

Now if she gets married and has a divorce or is widowed, she knows she can do it, on her own.
Get it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The root cause is philosophical, not that I harbor any illusion that you can comprehend this.

So someone with no basic education, trying to raise 3 kids alone and working two jobs should give up her refrigerator and her mode of transportation to and from those jobs because she hasn't "earned" it? Gotcha. I'm sure such a mother sits around wringing her hands that she should take a more "philosophical" approach to life.

How about the mother setting priorities for children:
education
job
1 dream
own place
romance
in that order

Now if she gets married and has a divorce or is widowed, she knows she can do it, on her own.
Get it?

We all get it, but a lot of folks don't. Women will have children, period. It is better in a secure financial and personal situation. However . . . we will pay for the "mistakes" on the front end or the back end. Let me say that again: we will pay for it one way or another. Let's make them taxpayers whenever we can instead of the wards of someone.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why do you love to rain on my parade.

You make war sound like a Bad Thing.

C'mon Sammy. Get it right. The correct phrase is:

Bad Thang!

You GO GURL!


***I love it when you've braided your hair in corn rows***

May we presume you have no students in your classes with braided corn rows? If so, I wonder how their parents feel about having a bigot as their teacher.

 

[MaggieMae]

What's to support that case? Specifically.

The fact that our U.S. auto makers and similar industries have been losing market share for decades. The fact that so many of our labor intensive manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. The fact that there are so many products no longer produced in the USA at all. Why? Because minimum wage laws, union entanglements, government regulation, oppressive environmental constraints, and a growing population who thinks the world owes them a living rather than people should expect to work for what they get.

And you can trace all of that to variations of the War on Poverty.

No, you can't. Don't be ridiculous. The topic was poverty, not the environment for chrissakes.

I want to know how getting rid of Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all other needs based programs will make America better. Specifically.

They're going to supply everyone under the poverty line a pair of bootstraps instead.

 

[MaggieMae]

As a group - Liberals have no business telling anyone what to do when it comes to poverty. They give substantially less to charity than conservatives. They are thrilled to spend "other peoples" money - just not their own.

Punt?

Captured. There's no way to quantify charitable figures because a breakdown by any nonreligious organization of how they spent the donations, which is all that counts, isn't sorted by political identity. Ask the Catholic Church where they allot their donations and they'll tell you it's private information that can't be disclosed. Chuck Grassley even tried to get something passed that would require the big Evangelical churches and televangelists to report where donations were being spent, since religious enterprises are still tax exempt.

 

[MaggieMae]

There will ALWAYS be those that are in poverty. There always have been. It always will be. And poverty is subjective depending on where you look.
People are impoverished because of circumstance and life choices they've made for themselves.

As to my poll answer? I chose "Government promotes" precisely due to their regulations, and trying to engineer society where they do not belong.

Get government off the backs of people, and we will flourish, shine. Anyone that doesn't flourish does so by choice, and poor choices at that.

Liberty is an all or nothing proposition frought with responsibility. High time responsibility is recognized instead of playing the blame game that forces gubmint to wrongly become involved.

I will go so far to say that there are some in poverty through absolutely no fault of their own but simply due to miserable unfortunate circumstances or just plain bad luck. The difference between such people and those who make bad choices is that the bad luck crowd generally do pull themselves out of it. Those folks I am 100% for giving a hand up to because they will be grateful and return more than they get.
I doubt anyone argues with that. I don't either. But the problem is if you eliminate an entire program--Section 8 housing, for example, those that need it will be just as hurt if not more so than those who are gaming the system. Once again! We (I) know what the problem is. But what is YOUR solution?

As for the rest I think Ben Franklin's advice has a great deal of merit:

"All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse."

" I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." -- Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1776

Even Ben Franklin doesn't offer any suggestion for how to do that.

 

[MaggieMae]

Welfare is self defeating.

You see your parents get up everyday and go to work. That preps you to get a job later in life.

You see your parents up after you come home from school, sitting around doing nothing. That preps you to do the same.

We have know this for at least 37 of those 47 years. And yet the dems constantly increase spending on something they must know doesn't work. So logically they must be doing it to keep the poor voting for them. And by increasing the debt we devalue the dollar, making more people poor and therefore reliant on the dems.

It's blatant for all that can see.

Oh wow, if we're going to continue with the blame game, I'll add even more of mine then. Check the figures and tell me when welfare outlay began increasing. You can use this same website to go back as far as when these figures began to be recorded.

Government Welfare Chart in United States 1995-2015 - Federal State Local

Who uses the poor for votes and always has?

Who says "don't vote for ------- or they will take your money away."?

Both sides will woo the poor and the Latino vote. Are you kidding? As for your second question, I don't know. Who?

 

[MaggieMae]

The Republicans telling Big Business that: "don't vote for ------- or they will take your money away."?

Both parties to it, and the class warfare before Tucson was tearing the country apart. I listened to some FoxNews today, and I was quite pleased with the rational dissent instead some of the strident propaganda I normally watched. The liberal media has to step up and match it.

They already did by firing Keith Olbermann.

 

[MaggieMae]

Precisely. We as Americans will help those that need it as a matter of good form, and it is demanded of us as a matter of conscience. Our history is replete of such works.

Yes, but it is best done no higher than at the state level and most preferably at the local level. It is far more likely that all parties will be responsible and ethical in the process and that true needs are met that way.

The problem lies therin that the Government has chosen to be our conscience against our will. That leads us to where we are now having this discussion.

And this for me is the best post of the day. I have been struggling to find a concise way to describe the phenomenon and you nailed it. "Government has chosen to be our conscience against our will." If you have no objections, I will absolutely steal that line for future appropriate use.

But the problem remains: YOU do not get to decide for all the rest as if your wishes represent a true consensus.

And by the way, tossing the problem to state and local municipalities won't work either, as they too are broke because of lack of revenue resulting from the economic crisis.

 

[MaggieMae]

The difference between two ideologies is that the liberals say don't vote for ____________ because he/they will take your government benefits away.

The conservatives say don't vote for ________________ because they intend to take more of your hard earned money.

One of these two threats is usually more credible than the other.

The thing is, if $10 trillion dollars could solve poverty in America, we wouldn't have any. It is obvious to all but the blind, I think, that lack of money is not the problem. Most poverty in America is a direct result of personal and cultural choices and, in my opinion, it is that we need to address if we are serious about reducing poverty.

But when there is a sizable number of elected leaders willing to accuse the other side of 'hating the poor' or 'not caring about the poor' or 'wanting the poor to be homeless and hungry' yadda yadda, however ridiculous such claims might be, they easily buy, bribe, coerce votes at will. And because those votes are essential for the next successful election, there is little incentive to do it any differently.

So the vested interests continue to blame anybody and everybody for the plight of the poor rather than looking to what the poor can start doing to turn that around. It's pretty obvious, the self interest of some is more compelling than is the desire to solve the problems.

Which elected leaders? I'm sure there are a few, but a "sizeable" number? Puleeze.

 

[MaggieMae]

How do you account for the fact that the numbers were falling prior to 1965?

And speaking of empty rhetoric, what's that "....until Reagan came into office and started his assault on the working class" dreck?

How do I account for the falling numbers pre 1965?

That was the best economic times this nation had. Of course the rate of poverty was down.

Don't you know anything about this nations economic history, Oddball?

Apparently not.

And you know, if you don't know what thing were like, how can you really judge how policies worked?

Poverty started to increase in this nation when Reaganomics kicked in.

Some segments of the population did better as a result of his policies, but most of us started to have less purchasing power.

The zenith of purchasing power for the middle in America began to fall around 1970 and more or less has been falling ever since.

Welfare has nothing to do with that.

Mostly that has to do with the changing econo0mies in the rest of the world, and our stupid decision to offshore our own indutrial jobs.

Wake up and smell the economy.

You are extremely misinformed by EXPERTS in propaganda.

Wait a minute....We had the best economic times the nation had BEFORE Medicare, Medicaid, Great Society welfare handouts and corporate bailouts?

When did the gold standard end and how did Nixon's wage and price controls work out?

What do you think the economic effect upon America was, in dumping uncounted billions of dollars into the Vietnam debacle?

What in hell do you think it was that brought about 12+% inflation and 20+% interest rates, in the late '70s & early '80s?

And you accuse me of knowing nothing about American economic history?

You were arguing the point PRE-1965. You were proven wrong, so you moved the gold post to POST-1965.

 

[Pepe]

Poverty breeds poverty. It takes money to make money. Lack of opportunity which results from poverty, leads to a lack of opportunity, like education, which leads to low-paying jobs, which again leads to lack of opportunity, perpetuating the cycle.

Education is the answer. Making sure that even students in crumbling schools with inadequate teachers have the opportunity to learn the same things that more affluent students are afforded. We can't continue to keep passing along failing students just because it's convenient or because quotas need to be met. Only then will the cycle begin to end. It's going to take a serious effort by both the government and local communities comprised of private enterprises stepping up to the plate.

Until the Parent or Parents begin to demand that their children get an education by doing those things that parents are supposed to do such as feeding, clothing, mentoring and setting personal high standards at home and in public....the system is doomed to failure.

With a Black Illigitimacy Rate approaching 80% and if the figures from Port-au-Prince North (Memphis) are correct that 1 of every two Black girls between 13 and 19 have an STD, along with Bill Cosby, I don't hold out much hope.

Federal Tax dollars extorted from the working folks will have no bearing on the outcome.

Sad.

 

[MaggieMae]

If you are "serious" about addressing it, I'd like to see a concrete "PLAN" after all the addressing it.

Why is it that someone else has to come up with a plan?

Because rhetoric is all we've had for decades and it's demonstrated once again by your thread.

No, it's not...We've also had and army of bureaucrats, trillions of dollars and uncountable social welfare programs for those decades, yet the problem is as bad as ever, and all poverty pimps like you can do is say "Oh yeah, well why don't you come up with a better plan?"

You propose no plan that would be workable when you consider the number of people that would need to be participants in any plan. You only talk about the values of conservatives and how values should somehow be enough to magically transform poorly educated and nonproductive people into intelligent, educated, and acceptable members of society. Regious groups can only do so much; philanthropic organizations can only do so much. Volunteers WILL only do so much. ...

Right...They'll only work for people who don't wish to become comfortable in their poverty...Funny how that happens when you have to actually look into the eyes of those from whom you're mooching.

Since 1965 and the "Great Society" which has expanded, conservatives and/or plain ol' Republicans have had years of legislative and presidential control to begin reining in the problem to make sure further expansion didn't happen, for all the reasons correctly pointed out in this thread. But...they...didn't...do...it. All we heard was the usual noise about how out of control "welfare" and the people on it have gotten. Could it be <gasp> because they didn't want to alienate a big voting bloc?

 

[Foxfyre]

There will ALWAYS be those that are in poverty. There always have been. It always will be. And poverty is subjective depending on where you look.
People are impoverished because of circumstance and life choices they've made for themselves.

As to my poll answer? I chose "Government promotes" precisely due to their regulations, and trying to engineer society where they do not belong.

Get government off the backs of people, and we will flourish, shine. Anyone that doesn't flourish does so by choice, and poor choices at that.

Liberty is an all or nothing proposition frought with responsibility. High time responsibility is recognized instead of playing the blame game that forces gubmint to wrongly become involved.

I will go so far to say that there are some in poverty through absolutely no fault of their own but simply due to miserable unfortunate circumstances or just plain bad luck. The difference between such people and those who make bad choices is that the bad luck crowd generally do pull themselves out of it. Those folks I am 100% for giving a hand up to because they will be grateful and return more than they get.
I doubt anyone argues with that. I don't either. But the problem is if you eliminate an entire program--Section 8 housing, for example, those that need it will be just as hurt if not more so than those who are gaming the system. Once again! We (I) know what the problem is. But what is YOUR solution?

As for the rest I think Ben Franklin's advice has a great deal of merit:

"All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse."

" I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." -- Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1776

Even Ben Franklin doesn't offer any suggestion for how to do that.

Sure he did. As have several have done right here on this thread. As I did in direct response to your comment. Which you have continued to ignore.

Until you respond coherently to that, I have no choice but to believe you are just here to snipe, judge, and condemn and have no intention of contributing to the discussion.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's bewildering isn't it?

Again referring to the graph in the OP, the poverty rate was plummeting BEFORE the so-called 'War on Poverty' and from that point on has been up and down but fairly level on average after expenditures exceeding $10 trillion on poverty programs since LBJ pushed Congress to allocate $1 billion for his anti-poverty initiative 47 years ago.

Any economist or social analyst worth his salt will tell you that poverty is not addressed adequately by government but rather by economic health in any society. The more free, less encumbered, and more opportunity to be prosperous the people have, the less poverty there will be and the less severe the poverty that exists will be.

So maybe, just maybe government programs are not the answer to poverty in America? Maybe just maybe government regulation and tax structures that best encourage the private sector is the best plan to reduce poverty in America?

I just shake my head when I read some of our members suggesting that if we don't give the poor television sets and Xboxes and other luxuries that we will just encourage them to steal them. That might hold up if our history didn't show that in times of much less less prosperity and much more poverty in the past, there was much less crime. Maybe just maybe the answer is in teaching traditional values of honesty, integrity, basic common decency instead of assuming everybody will be evil if they aren't given what they want?

I just shake my head when I read some of our members suggesting that we hurt the children if we don't support their irresponsible parents. When one in five children lives in poverty and almost ALL of that one in five are children of single parents, maybe just maybe the answer is in promoting marriage, two parent traditional families, and people accepting their responsibilities of supporting and parenting their children if they are going to have children. Maybe just maybe we promote children in poverty by subsidizing irresponsible behavior?

I know some of you sneer at and turn up your nose at conservative values. But if we are serious about addressing the root and effect of poverty on our people, I think you would all do well to take another honest look at that.

I was talking about human nature, Fox. "Keeping up with the Joneses" didn't originate in this decade, nor the last. Plus, I never said it was right--just that it would happen.

If you are "serious" about addressing it, I'd like to see a concrete "PLAN" after all the addressing it. Because rhetoric is all we've had for decades and it's demonstrated once again by your thread. You propose no plan that would be workable when you consider the number of people that would need to be participants in any plan. You only talk about the values of conservatives and how values should somehow be enough to magically transform poorly educated and nonproductive people into intelligent, educated, and acceptable members of society. Regious groups can only do so much; philanthropic organizations can only do so much. Volunteers WILL only do so much. As I said, to end the cycle of poverty, it will take a joint commitment by communities and government working together, and it will cost money, no matter what alternative "plan" is implemented. Turn bad situations around by real working programs, and the values will follow. Are conservatives en masse willing to cough it up or will they just continue to be all talk and no action?

Here's the plan.

The Federal government will address and fulfill its constitutionally mandated duties and otherwise get out of the business of social engineering, social relief, etc. etc. etc. It is obvious to many of us that the federal government makes things worse or creates unintended bad consequences when it interjects itself into the social process.
How will it be structured? That's a policy statement, not a plan.

I think the MaggieMae's of the world should put their time, energy, skills, and monetary resources where their mouth is and get busy in their local communities to deal with the problems there instead of expecting the federal government to take and use other people's money to do that.
I do. Do you? I haven't this year, but in years past I have volunteered my time to help seventh and eighth graders with remedial reading. I volunteer to cook for a half-way house once a month. I meet many people along the way who volunteer their own time to do their part. We also try to get city community development honchos interested in forming business coalitions to work with local schools preparing kids for post-graduation and what to expect in the workplace if they can't go to college. So far, we've seen little success with that. And unrelated to poverty or education, I also I gather books and magazines and haul them to the VFW to be shipped to Afghanistan/Iraq for soldiers.
And as we can't accomplish all that over night, I thnk we should implement the proposals in the following letter immediately so that nobody has to go hungry or without shelter but poverty will become a lot less attractive to a lot more people who just might find the incentive to avoid it:

A letter written to The Waco Tribune

Put me in charge…

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
I agree about the Ding Dongs, but only rice, beans and cheese is hardly nutritional. Hopefully, this bastard doesn't consider us a third world country yet.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test all recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke, or get tats and piercings, then get a job.
I agree with drug testing, but forced sterilization is rather Hitler-esque, don't you think? As for tattos and piercings, I have yet to see a great majority of people standing in welfare lines looking like street gang members. They get their money elsewhere.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
Section 8 housing is already scrutinized by annual inspections (or supposed to be). Some of the housing in the complex where I live are Section 8 residents, and they indeed get inspected once a year for violations, and another seperate inspection for fire safety. The biggest problem with Section 8 are the people who still can't pay their portion of the rent, and having to evict them which is a long process. The part about buying luxuries is laughable. Isn't it the conservatives who constantly wail that nobody has a right to tell them what to do with their money?

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you to do. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good”.
He could have stopped with the suggestion, whic is a good one. But this asshole shows his bigotry by expanding on it. His is a perfect example of the recent push for "adult" conversations about issues we disagree on. The idiot makes a point, then destroys it by his vitriol.

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem”, consider that is wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

Alfred W Evans
1SG, USA(Ret)
Gatesville, Texas

He might just as well have suggested we hang 'em high. Why are Retired Army Sargeants from Texas such jerks I wonder? Nevermind. I already know why.

 

[MaggieMae]

If you are "serious" about addressing it, I'd like to see a concrete "PLAN" after all the addressing it. Because rhetoric is all we've had for decades and it's demonstrated once again by your thread. You propose no plan that would be workable when you consider the number of people that would need to be participants in any plan. You only talk about the values of conservatives and how values should somehow be enough to magically transform poorly educated and nonproductive people into intelligent, educated, and acceptable members of society. .....?

Blah, blah blah....Yeah, maybe we need another stinkin' Federal program..

Rhetoric being "all we've seen for decades....????" (conveniently ignoring the Department of Health and Human Services, Dept of Education, Dept.....): Jaysus, Maggie your ignorance has no limit.

Here are just the "A's"

A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies (A): USA.gov

Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
•Administration for Native Americans
•Administration on Aging (AoA)
•Administration on Developmental Disabilities
•Administrative Committee of the Federal Register
•Administrative Conference of the United States
•Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
•Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
•African Development Foundation
•Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
•Agency for International Development
•Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
•Agricultural Marketing Service
•Agricultural Research Service
•Agriculture Department (USDA)
•Air Force
•Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau (Justice)
•Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (Treasury)
•American Battle Monuments Commission
•AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation)
•Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
•Appalachian Regional Commission
•Architect of the Capitol
•Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board)
•Archives (National Archives and Records Administration)
•Arctic Research Commission
•Arizona State, County, and City Websites
•Arkansas State, County, and City Websites
•Armed Forces Retirement Home
•Arms Control and International Security
•Army
•Army Corps of Engineers
•Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee
•Atlantic Fleet Forces Command

As I already pointed out, the Republicans have been in charge at least equally as many terms as Democrats for the last 30 years. That you morans continue to blame all of this as a "liberal" problem promulgated only by Democrats is fucking ludicrous.