LBJ's "War on Poverty" has been a dismal failure

[Contumacious]

LBJ's "War on Poverty" has been a dismal failure


Today, the poverty rate is only slightly below where it was in 1964, and it came with a $20 trillion price tag. What’s more, a record 47 million Americans are now receiving food stamps, which is about 13 million more than when the President Obama took office.

Actually, the war on poverty hasn’t failed. It has done exactly what it was intended to do: enrich and empower the state and its interest groups. One of the problems of being a think-tank is that you must accept the state’s bona fides, or be fired. Only radical criticism, however, criticism that goes to the root, in other words, has a chance of delegitimizing these evil activities.

”

Yep. As was the War on Drugs, the War on Iraq and the War on the Taliban. It's hard to say which was the most costly, thought the War on Iraq likely cost the most innocent lives.

I suppose the war on poverty save the most lives but it never defeated poverty.

The intent was NOT to "defeat" poverty.

The purpose was to create a dependent parasitic class willing to exchange freebies for power.

.

 

[Contumacious]

LBJ's "War on Poverty" has been a dismal failure
”

It has not been a failure. It was simply too small an effort to offset this:

America has become a much richer country since 70s, but almost all those gains went to the high income earners. The incomes of the poor (working poor) remained constant at best.

What prevents you from learning a marketable skill thereby preventing your income from remaining constant?!?!?!?

.

 

[Contumacious]

LBJs War on Poverty may not have worked

But Reagans War on the Poor sure did

What the fuck did he do to the poor?

Where is the Constitutional authority to help the poor or the rich?

.

 

[Contumacious]

LBJs War on Poverty may not have worked

But Reagans War on the Poor sure did

Then so did Obama's war on the poor, because there are more americans in poverty today than when you fools put him in office.

The massive costs of the welfare/warfare party destroys the middle class and jobs.

.

 

[bendog]

LBJ's "War on Poverty" has been a dismal failure
”

It has not been a failure. It was simply too small an effort to offset this:

America has become a much richer country since 70s, but almost all those gains went to the high income earners. The incomes of the poor (working poor) remained constant at best.

What prevents you from learning a marketable skill thereby preventing your income from remaining constant?!?!?!?

.

logically your post is that only 1% have marketable skills. You may want to rework that.

 

[bendog]

That could be the dust bowl of the 1930s in oklahoma or appalachia yesterday. Whats your point? There have always been poor people and sadly the liberal dems have done nothing to reduce the number of poor.

Where do you think the poor in the south went in the 30s and 40s to find work? How about Detroit in the car companies? Yep, thats where a lot of them went. Can poor people find jobs in the auto industry in Detroit today? Nope, but they can find jobs in the non-union car factories in the south---Mercedes, BMW, Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Kia, Hyundai-----good paying blue collar jobs with good benefits----and no union dues to pay.

And many areas of the country, as shown by the LBJ photos, were no better by the 60s. Yes...we still have poverty...some are too lazy, too stupid, or too something to pull themselves up...But I would like to think that everyone has a roof over their heads now, heat, electicity, food....which many did not have back then.

That is true. I would argue that the effect of LBJ's policies devasted the black middle class and encouraged generations of single mothers, but it's not like middle class white guys are raising the kids they fathered as occurred previously.

Places like Sugar Ditch in Tunica County Ms are much better. There's actually running water and plumbing now. It was not a total loss.

 

[Contumacious]

Remembering what REAL poverty used to be in this country....at least we do not have that degree of devastation. What HAS changed, IMO, is the definition of what constitutes poverty today.

The technological advances made by PRIVATE INDUSTRY - not government handouts - is the reason poverty is no longer devastating.

.

 

[bendog]

Remembering what REAL poverty used to be in this country....at least we do not have that degree of devastation. What HAS changed, IMO, is the definition of what constitutes poverty today.

The technological advances made by PRIVATE INDUSTRY - not government handouts - is the reason poverty is no longer devastating.

.

LOL. technological advances didn't give sugar ditch the money to bring in clean water and sewers.

 

[zeke]

That could be the dust bowl of the 1930s in oklahoma or appalachia yesterday. Whats your point? There have always been poor people and sadly the liberal dems have done nothing to reduce the number of poor.

Where do you think the poor in the south went in the 30s and 40s to find work? How about Detroit in the car companies? Yep, thats where a lot of them went. Can poor people find jobs in the auto industry in Detroit today? Nope, but they can find jobs in the non-union car factories in the south---Mercedes, BMW, Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Kia, Hyundai-----good paying blue collar jobs with good benefits----and no union dues to pay.

And many areas of the country, as shown by the LBJ photos, were no better by the 60s. Yes...we still have poverty...some are too lazy, too stupid, or too something to pull themselves up...But I would like to think that everyone has a roof over their heads now, heat, electicity, food....which many did not have back then.

That is true. I would argue that the effect of LBJ's policies devasted the black middle class and encouraged generations of single mothers, but it's not like middle class white guys are raising the kids they fathered as occurred previously.

Places like Sugar Ditch in Tunica County Ms are much better. There's actually running water and plumbing now. It was not a total loss.

Yea I think Urban Renewal projects did help destroy the black middle class. Whether or not it was intentional is the question.

As to black women being the head of family and raising kids without the dad. Blacks have a long history of that here in this country. It started during slave times when a black family would be split apart through slave sales or whatever. The master would sell the dad and keep the moms and kids for workers. It just made a more cooperative slave to not have a real family unit. For some reason the men didn't like it when their wives and kids would get abused or raped. They would want to hurt someone. Couldn't have that. So the women got used to being the head of family without a dad.

And for some reason it continued.

 

[Contumacious]

Remembering what REAL poverty used to be in this country....at least we do not have that degree of devastation. What HAS changed, IMO, is the definition of what constitutes poverty today.

You are correct about that. The so-called poor in the US today are much much better off than the middle class in many third world nations.

BTW, who changed the definition? Who keeps raising the income level under which one is considered in "poverty"?

Are you saying that the people currently classified as living in poverty should be removed from that classification and have their welfare payments reduced or eliminated?

What exactly do you dems want? Oh, I know, everyone to be equal, fairness, tolerance, , oh, and punish the evil rich. About right?

One must consider the great strides in the War on Poverty. Why the poor are richer than they once were.

20 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion

Hummmmmmmm

I bet the poor only received a tiny percentage of that amount.

Most of it went to federal bureaucrats , powerful constituencies and political factions.

.

 

[Contumacious]

What's your point?

That LBJ found out that by catering to the poor he could get fame and power?

.

 

[Contumacious]

That could be the dust bowl of the 1930s in oklahoma or appalachia yesterday. Whats your point? There have always been poor people and sadly the liberal dems have done nothing to reduce the number of poor.

Where do you think the poor in the south went in the 30s and 40s to find work? How about Detroit in the car companies? Yep, thats where a lot of them went. Can poor people find jobs in the auto industry in Detroit today? Nope, but they can find jobs in the non-union car factories in the south---Mercedes, BMW, Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Kia, Hyundai-----good paying blue collar jobs with good benefits----and no union dues to pay.

Exactly.

They just want them to vote democrat.

in the process they destroy the work ethic and the people's motivation.

.

 

[ilia25]

LBJ's "War on Poverty" has been a dismal failure
”

It has not been a failure. It was simply too small an effort to offset this:

America has become a much richer country since 70s, but almost all those gains went to the high income earners. The incomes of the poor (working poor) remained constant at best.

What prevents you from learning a marketable skill thereby preventing your income from remaining constant?!?!?!?

.

It's not about me. It's about the rest -- and no, they cannot ALL become CEOs. Not even if every single one of them would graduate from an ivy league business school.

 

[ilia25]

LBJ's "War on Poverty" has been a dismal failure
”

It has not been a failure. It was simply too small an effort to offset this:

America has become a much richer country since 70s, but almost all those gains went to the high income earners. The incomes of the poor (working poor) remained constant at best.

What has obama done to reverse the trend of the red line? answer: nothing. The rich/poor gap has gotten larger under obama's version of marxist collectivism.

You better be kidding. Obama tried a lot, but every his initiative to help the poor was blocked by Republicans in Congress.

 

[ilia25]

We buy it because it's obvious and we don't glug kool-aid and blindly believe what politicians tell us. You know, like you do.

No. Because it is retarded. Americans are not, by nature, moochers. They will not support a party that treats them like moochers.

Idiotic.

Really? Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Why then is the Health and Human Services Budget

967 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBillions


.

Because those working low income jobs deserve to live in dignity, just as the seniors who worked hard until they could work no more.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Who Votes in America? [infographic] | Daily Infographic

 

[LoneLaugher]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Who-Votes-Yale-Fastback-Series/dp/0300025521]Who Votes? (Yale Fastback Series): Raymond E. Wolfinger, Steven J. Rosenstone: 9780300025521: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Leighley, J.E. and Nagler, J.: Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States. (eBook, Paper and Cloth)

 

[Contumacious]

logically your post is that only 1% have marketable skills. You may want to rework that.

The Evil 1%

I’m speaking of the State, which even today is made up of a tiny sliver of the population, but is the direct cause of all the impoverishing wars, inflation, taxes, regimentation, and social conflict. This 1% is the direct cause of the violence, the censorship, the unemployment, and vast amounts of poverty, too


.

 

[Contumacious]

LOL. technological advances didn't give sugar ditch the money to bring in clean water and sewers.

Legalized gambling lifts a depressed town

Fifteen years ago Tunica, Miss., was dirt-poor, a national disgrace. Since then, casino gambling has brought prosperity.

.

 

[Contumacious]

It has not been a failure. It was simply too small an effort to offset this:

America has become a much richer country since 70s, but almost all those gains went to the high income earners. The incomes of the poor (working poor) remained constant at best.

What prevents you from learning a marketable skill thereby preventing your income from remaining constant?!?!?!?

.

It's not about me. It's about the rest -- and no, they cannot ALL become CEOs. Not even if every single one of them would graduate from an ivy league business school.

So the only way of earning a living is being a CEO?!?!?!?!

.