The War On Poverty: Lost

[PoliticalChic]

What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?

It misdirects assets, takes what is earned and gives it away in exchange for votes, and has no interest in actually solving societal problems.

Are voters so stupid that they are willing to overlook the black hole of abysmal waste that the welfare state has become?






1. "Today, [September 16, 2014 ] the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50thanniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty.
Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.


2. ... taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.


3. ... government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)


4. .... about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

5. .... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


6. [The scam:] Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state."
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop


How much more clearly does the public need to be shown that Liberalism is a failure?

The War on Poverty isn't supposed to fix problems any differently than punishment in the justice system doesn't make the world a better place. It's about honor, dignity, and character. The point is many people in society have been wronged in the past, so they're compensated for how they're wronged.

Also, stats remaining the same doesn't really mean anything. For example, if the War on Poverty didn't happen, then those stats could be much worse. What you're saying is like saying we should stop spending on law enforcement because crime rates haven't gone down.

The problem is there are lots of jerks in society who fundamentally refuse to acknowledge the need to reform social values in order to prevent poverty from happening the first place. In turn, the War on Poverty is the only remaining option on how to treat the problem.

I can see you've gotten your education from bumper stickers and t-shirts.

Let me guess: 'a reliable Democrat voter.'

I got my education from seeing how the deconstruction of family values, religion, and tradition lead to a society where people couldn't become successful despite honestly applying themselves.

Instead, they were socially alienated into working for the man. If they expected to be treated with respect based on who they are as individuals on the inside that counts, then they got abused, neglected, blamed as the victim, and told to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Personal responsibility was thrown out the window.

I found that interesting.

I'd like to see more of your posts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?

It misdirects assets, takes what is earned and gives it away in exchange for votes, and has no interest in actually solving societal problems.

Are voters so stupid that they are willing to overlook the black hole of abysmal waste that the welfare state has become?






1. "Today, [September 16, 2014 ] the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50thanniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty.
Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.


2. ... taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.


3. ... government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)


4. .... about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

5. .... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


6. [The scam:] Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state."
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop


How much more clearly does the public need to be shown that Liberalism is a failure?

But the war on working class tax payers is a raging success.

The greatest bar to becoming wealthy is taxes.

Early on, the Times wrote about Obama:
"But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html

 

[billyerock1991]

Another "ain't it awful" thread by the Queen curmudgeon, sans any hint of what could/should be done. Pointing fingers at liberals, when a problem which has existed since the birth of our nation, and bi-partisan votes have funded efforts to end poverty is at best disingenuous.

But let us not leave this thread, one which is important and deserves more than a partisan spin. In another thread I posted the following link, so that an informed debate on the issue and real world ideas can be vetted.

Follow the history of efforts to build a safety net beginning in 1776, and follow the timeline to 1969:

1776-1799 ElderWeb

"Pointing fingers at liberals,..."

Yup.

With good reason.

1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.
2. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

[The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year.
Overview of the Final Report of the SIME DIME Report]

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.



Liberalism.....the path to destruction.

more right wing distortions .... we get it ...take a aspirin .... your ability to post facts is
clouded your ability to post with any factual bases to it

Check out the links and sources, you imbecile.

Is it because I suggested you are a bad-tempered, difficult, cantankerous person? Least you forget, I will address your "links and sources" with a quote from above:

PC is not short on facts, more accurately she cherry picks facts and 'authorities' who support her extreme ideological bias. It is of course true that she hates liberals, and since hate is a very strong emotion, one might speculate that she was somehow harmed (emotionally?) by a liberal in the past; or someone she presumes is a liberal since they have the audacity to disagree with her."

I appreciate the fact that you didn't deny being an imbecile.

That, of course, is the hermeneutical key to all of your posts.


I'll wait while you get a dictionary.

hows that aspirin stock going???? just asking....

 

[billyerock1991]

So....how come you can't dispute any of the facts?

You must be a government school grad, huh?

In general YOUR facts are twisted in order to PROVE something that you, yourself believe to be fact.

Do insults count as facts??? If so, you're the foremost authority on everything under the sun.

You won't even try to deal with my facts.

Insults?????

Me???

Winning hearts and minds. That's what I'm all about!

Whining is what you are about PC. This isn't the first time you have tried to misrepresent the War on Poverty. And this is not the first time (or the last time, knowing your authoritarian upbringing) that I will correct you...


You are a wealth of right wing parrot squawk...

Good example...the War on Poverty...

Ironically, the War on Poverty SHOULD have been strongly supported by conservatives. But they only offer empty rhetoric, while trying to tear down the working men and women of our nation and always trying to create an aristocracy by propping up and worshiping the opulent.

Here are some FACTS for you on what the War on Poverty was and wasn't.

When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted President Johnson's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action, opportunity, responsibility, and empowerment.

The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's goal was maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.) Ref

Here is one of the agencies created by the WOP...

Job Corps is a program administered by the United States Department of Labor that offers free-of-charge education and vocational training to youth ages 16 to 24.

Job Corps offers career planning, on-the-job training, job placement, residential housing, food service, driver's education, basic health and dental care, a bi-weekly basic living allowance and clothing allowance. Some centers offer childcare programs for single parents as well.

Besides vocational training, the Job Corps program also offers academic training, including basic reading and math, GED attainment, college preparatory, and Limited English Proficiency courses. Some centers also offer programs that allow students to remain in residence at their center while attending college.[citation needed] Job Corps provides career counseling and transition support to its students for up to one year after they graduate from the program.

Career paths

Career paths offered by Job Corps include:

Advanced manufacturing

Communication design
Drafting
Electronic assembly
Machine appliance repair
Machining
Welding
Manufacturing technology
Sign, billboard, and display

Automotive and machine repair

Automobile technician
General services technician
Collision repair and refinish
Heavy construction equipment mechanic
Diesel mechanic
Medium/heavy truck repair
Electronics tech
Stationary engineering

Construction

Bricklaying
Carpentry
Cement masonry
Concrete and terrazzo
Construction craft laborer
Electrical
Electrical overhead line
Facilities maintenance
Floor covering
Glazing
HVAC
Industrial engineering technician
Licensed electrician (bilingual)
Mechanical engineering technician
Painting
Plastering
Plumbing
Roto-Rooter plumbing
Tile setting

Extension programs

Advanced Career Training (ACT)
General Educational Development (GED)
Commercial driver's license (CDL)
Off-Center Training (OCT Program)
High school diploma (HSD Program)

Finance and Business

Accounting services
Business management
Clerical occupations
Legal secretary
Insurance and financial services
Marketing
Medical insurance specialist
Office administration
Paralegal
Purchasing

Health care/allied health professions

Clinical medical assistant
Dental assistant
EKG technician
Emergency medical technician
Exercise/massage therapy
Hemodialysis technician
Licensed practical/vocational nurse
Medical office support
Nurse assistant/home health aide
Opticianry
Pharmacy technician
Phlebotomy
Physical therapy assistant
Rehabilitation therapy
Rehabilitation technician
Registered nurse
Respiratory therapy
Sterile processing
Surgical technician

Homeland security

Corrections officer
Seamanship
Security and protective services

Hospitality

Culinary arts
Hotel and lodging

Information technology

A+ Microsoft MSCE
Computer Networking/Cisco
Computer systems administrator
Computer support specialist
Computer technician
Integrated system tech
Network cable installation
Visual communications

Renewable resources and energy

Forest conservation and urban forestry
Firefighting
Wastewater
Landscaping

Retail sales and services

Behavioral health aide
Criminal justice
Child development
Residential advisor
Cosmetology
Retail sales

Transportation

Asphalt paving
Material and distribution operations
Clerical occupations
Heavy equipment operations
Roustabout operator
Heavy truck driving
TCU administrative clerk

she does it all the time.... oh by the way... you're wasting your time showing her actual facts ... instead of trying to show you where you went wrong, she will starting with the childuish remarks about you age ...you maturity ... and on and on ... she hates it when she been bested and you just bested her good luck with that...

 

[billyerock1991]

The soft bigotry of reduced expectations applies to more than skin color.

Your usual vacuous bluster...

Your usual shallow, simplistic, closed-minded partisan ideology.

.

THAT is a laugh...talk about 'partisan ideology'....you use of the term "reduced expectations"...

What do you know about the War on Poverty that actually was a initiative of JFK's New Frontier?

What were the 'core principles' of the War on Poverty? What was the agency that was created??

If you have a point to make, make it.

I made mine, and without games.

It ain't that tough, I swear.

.

the only point you have is that pointed hat you wear thats says
D
U
N
C
H

 

[PoliticalChic]

The soft bigotry of reduced expectations applies to more than skin color.

Your usual vacuous bluster...

Your usual shallow, simplistic, closed-minded partisan ideology.

.

THAT is a laugh...talk about 'partisan ideology'....you use of the term "reduced expectations"...

What do you know about the War on Poverty that actually was a initiative of JFK's New Frontier?

What were the 'core principles' of the War on Poverty? What was the agency that was created??

If you have a point to make, make it.

I made mine, and without games.

It ain't that tough, I swear.

.

the only point you have is that pointed hat you wear thats says
D
U
N
C
H

"DUNCH"????????????


OK...we have a winner in the category of "Unintentional Humor."


You are a DUNCE!!!

 

[Mac1958]

I just toss 'em up in the air...

And they knock 'em over the fence for me.

 

[Daktoria]

What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?

It misdirects assets, takes what is earned and gives it away in exchange for votes, and has no interest in actually solving societal problems.

Are voters so stupid that they are willing to overlook the black hole of abysmal waste that the welfare state has become?






1. "Today, [September 16, 2014 ] the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50thanniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty.
Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.


2. ... taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.


3. ... government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)


4. .... about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

5. .... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


6. [The scam:] Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state."
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop


How much more clearly does the public need to be shown that Liberalism is a failure?

But the war on working class tax payers is a raging success.

The war on working class taxpayers has little to do with actual taxes.

It has to do with destroying principles, values, and ideals in society which would enable working class taxpayers to become more successful.

The problem is working class people literally don't think abstractly about how to make a living. They feel concretely instead, so they end up actually destroying themselves while being facilitated by elites who don't want their social status challenged.

This happens on the left in terms of moral emotivism, relativism, and the insistence of evidence to justify beliefs...

...and it happens on the right in terms of might makes right power politics and the insistence of rugged individualism.

The bottomline is working class people don't get ahead anymore because they don't care about due process or due diligence in society. They're just a bunch of pragmatists who constantly live in the moment instead of thinking before they act. That pragmatism creates conflict and hostility among their own since what's pragmatic is personal, not social. How you get things done depends on what you're trying to do, but just because some people are trying to do something doesn't mean everyone is.

The implication is forced emotional incompatibility where people are expected to associate with those they don't get along with, and where those who are the most powerful in society become entitled to dictate their emotions onto others in telling them what to do without consent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?

It misdirects assets, takes what is earned and gives it away in exchange for votes, and has no interest in actually solving societal problems.

Are voters so stupid that they are willing to overlook the black hole of abysmal waste that the welfare state has become?






1. "Today, [September 16, 2014 ] the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50thanniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty.
Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.


2. ... taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.


3. ... government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)


4. .... about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

5. .... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


6. [The scam:] Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state."
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop


How much more clearly does the public need to be shown that Liberalism is a failure?

But the war on working class tax payers is a raging success.

The war on working class taxpayers has little to do with actual taxes.

It has to do with destroying principles, values, and ideals in society which would enable working class taxpayers to become more successful.

The problem is working class people literally don't think abstractly about how to make a living. They feel concretely instead, so they end up actually destroying themselves while being facilitated by elites who don't want their social status challenged.

This happens on the left in terms of moral emotivism, relativism, and the insistence of evidence to justify beliefs...

...and it happens on the right in terms of might makes right power politics and the insistence of rugged individualism.

The bottomline is working class people don't get ahead anymore because they don't care about due process or due diligence in society. They're just a bunch of pragmatists who constantly live in the moment instead of thinking before they act. That pragmatism creates conflict and hostility among their own since what's pragmatic is personal, not social. How you get things done depends on what you're trying to do, but just because some people are trying to do something doesn't mean everyone is.

The implication is forced emotional incompatibility where people are expected to associate with those they don't get along with, and where those who are the most powerful in society become entitled to dictate their emotions onto others in telling them what to do without consent.

A well-constructed, intelligent post.

Unusual around here.

 

[Bfgrn]

Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
January 13, 2014

Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait

President Lyndon Johnson’s visit to Tom Fletcher’s home in Kentucky was part of his tour of poverty stricken areas in the U.S. (Photo by Walter Bennett/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images).


Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to urge “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” The War on Poverty, as the set of social programs enacted in 1964-1965 came to be called, was arguably the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the Great Depression. But for decades, politicians and social scientists have argued about whether Johnson’s antipoverty programs have lifted people out of destitution, trapped them in cycles of dependency, or both.

Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.

What’s inarguable, though, is that the demographics of America’s poor have shifted over the decades. Here’s a look at what has, and hasn’t, changed, based on the official measure. (Note: The reference years vary depending on data availability.)


Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.

But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.

Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.

Poverty is more evenly distributed, though still heaviest in the South: In 1969, 45.9% of poor Americans lived in the South, a region that accounted for 31% of the U.S. population at the time. At 17.9%, the South’s poverty rate was far above other regions. In 2012, the South was home to 37.3% of all Americans and 41.1% of the nation’s poor people; though the South’s poverty rate, 16.5%, was the highest among the four Census-designated regions, it was only 3.2 percentage points above the lowest (the Midwest).

Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).

But poverty has risen among Hispanics. Poverty data for Hispanics, who can be of any race, wasn’t collected until 1972. That year, 22.8% lived below the poverty threshold. In 2012, the share of Hispanics in poverty had risen to 25.6%. But the U.S. Hispanic population has quintupled over that time. As a result, more than half of the 22 million-person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gee, I think it's best to let the narcissist wait.

Wait???

For you??

If I had a dollar for each time I thought about you....I'd start thinking about you.

Ouch, that truly hurts. Let me help, my friends called me "Burt", not for Burt and Ernie, but because I looked like Burt Lancaster. Others nicknamed me Herc, as I'm 6'2" tall and a sleek 225 pounds. My shoulders will support half a dozen conservatives, well, not six fatties, but the usual skinny short and sissified ones. Don't worry, I have an image of you too and it is not one of any guys' dreams - unless of course the guy is subject to nightmares.

 

[Conservative65]

It will allow those of you that claim you are compassionate the opportunity to prove it. Without taxpayer funded programs, it will provie you the chance to back of your claims that you believe someone should have what they don't pay for and didn't earn. The ONLY way that will happen is if you fund it yourself. That will match your words with your actions. As a Conservative, I know you won't but you will continue to blame someone else for not wanting to fund what you will prove you only provide lip service to doing.

If you know of someone that needs something you can fulfill that need without involving me, the government , or any other taxpayer. WRITE A CHECK TO THEM. Failure to do so only prove your are nothing more than a good intentioned, do nothing, Liberal blowhard.

Hey I can match you ridiculous idea for ridiculous idea.

How about this. You make it so that my tax dollars are not being spent on subsidies for corporations and un necessary war and I'll have it so that my tax dollars help out the neediest people we have. Deal?

As for corporations, I agree. As for war, when you can have that word and those involving raising a military taken out of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, go for it. As for necessary or unnecessary, not your place to decide.

When you can show me the word food stamps, healthcare, etc. in the Constitution, you can run your mouth about things that already are. You're the typical retard Liberal that thinks things not in the Constitution should happen but things that are shouldn't.

You mean like it is not your place to decide if a person should have the benefit of receiving welfare. Got it.

Hey and show me where in the COTUS where invasion of another country with out cause is authorized.

Seems to me that COTUS addresses DEFENSE of the nation.

Invading a country that didn't attack us is not in the DEFENSE of this country as defined in the COTUS.

Or do you have another version that only right wing idiots know about?

You seem to think it's your place to determine whether or not someone else has to fund those programs.

In case you were unaware, the same people who now claim an invasion without cause voted for it, some twice. In fact, many of them made the same claims that Bush made before Bush was President. I can show the quotes. You won't acknowledge them.

That's all you got eh? That fact that hated Democrats made the mistake of believing what the President told them was the truth. Really that's the best defense you got for us invading Iraq. The Dems made us do it.

How old are you?

Either way, the subject was the COTUS and how is provides for the nations defense. Not invading other countries that didn't attack us. That would be offensive war. Where is that part talked about in the COTUS?

And you know what. I read your description of todays welfare recipients. How in the hell you think that the war on poverty was a disaster when people live like you described is a mystery.

But you seem to not be able to say how things for poor people will be much better when welfare is no more.
Or at least much less. How much do you want to spend on welfare? Any money at all? Or are you just gonna dig deep in your pocket and fund some poor people that you like when the welfare money ends?

Those Democrats made the same statement for which you assholes claimed Bush lied BEFORE Bush was President.

The word "war" is in the Constitution. If you look in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, it says Congress has that power. The Congress, including Democrats who gave the same reasons as Bush, voted to do so. Whether or not your agree has nothing to do with it.

The war on poverty was designed to alleviate poverty. Roughly the same percentage of Americans in poverty today were in poverty in 1965 BEFORE trillions were spent to produce zero result.

"How much do you want to spend on welfare? Any money at all? Or are you just gonna dig deep in your pocket and fund some poor people that you like when the welfare money ends?"

That's how charity is supposed to work. That's the definition of it. Charity involves me doing things where I see a need not where you determine I'm supposed to fund one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?

It misdirects assets, takes what is earned and gives it away in exchange for votes, and has no interest in actually solving societal problems.

Are voters so stupid that they are willing to overlook the black hole of abysmal waste that the welfare state has become?






1. "Today, [September 16, 2014 ] the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50thanniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty.
Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.


2. ... taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.


3. ... government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)


4. .... about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

5. .... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


6. [The scam:] Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state."
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop


How much more clearly does the public need to be shown that Liberalism is a failure?

But the war on working class tax payers is a raging success.

The war on working class taxpayers has little to do with actual taxes.

It has to do with destroying principles, values, and ideals in society which would enable working class taxpayers to become more successful.

The problem is working class people literally don't think abstractly about how to make a living. They feel concretely instead, so they end up actually destroying themselves while being facilitated by elites who don't want their social status challenged.

This happens on the left in terms of moral emotivism, relativism, and the insistence of evidence to justify beliefs...

...and it happens on the right in terms of might makes right power politics and the insistence of rugged individualism.

The bottomline is working class people don't get ahead anymore because they don't care about due process or due diligence in society. They're just a bunch of pragmatists who constantly live in the moment instead of thinking before they act. That pragmatism creates conflict and hostility among their own since what's pragmatic is personal, not social. How you get things done depends on what you're trying to do, but just because some people are trying to do something doesn't mean everyone is.

The implication is forced emotional incompatibility where people are expected to associate with those they don't get along with, and where those who are the most powerful in society become entitled to dictate their emotions onto others in telling them what to do without consent.

What a load of psychobabble.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
January 13, 2014

Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait

President Lyndon Johnson’s visit to Tom Fletcher’s home in Kentucky was part of his tour of poverty stricken areas in the U.S. (Photo by Walter Bennett/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images).


Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to urge “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” The War on Poverty, as the set of social programs enacted in 1964-1965 came to be called, was arguably the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the Great Depression. But for decades, politicians and social scientists have argued about whether Johnson’s antipoverty programs have lifted people out of destitution, trapped them in cycles of dependency, or both.

Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.

What’s inarguable, though, is that the demographics of America’s poor have shifted over the decades. Here’s a look at what has, and hasn’t, changed, based on the official measure. (Note: The reference years vary depending on data availability.)


Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.

But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.

Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.

Poverty is more evenly distributed, though still heaviest in the South: In 1969, 45.9% of poor Americans lived in the South, a region that accounted for 31% of the U.S. population at the time. At 17.9%, the South’s poverty rate was far above other regions. In 2012, the South was home to 37.3% of all Americans and 41.1% of the nation’s poor people; though the South’s poverty rate, 16.5%, was the highest among the four Census-designated regions, it was only 3.2 percentage points above the lowest (the Midwest).

Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).

But poverty has risen among Hispanics. Poverty data for Hispanics, who can be of any race, wasn’t collected until 1972. That year, 22.8% lived below the poverty threshold. In 2012, the share of Hispanics in poverty had risen to 25.6%. But the U.S. Hispanic population has quintupled over that time. As a result, more than half of the 22 million-person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gee, I think it's best to let the narcissist wait.

Wait???

For you??

If I had a dollar for each time I thought about you....I'd start thinking about you.

Ouch, that truly hurts. Let me help, my friends called me "Burt", not for Burt and Ernie, but because I looked like Burt Lancaster. Others nicknamed me Herc, as I'm 6'2" tall and a sleek 225 pounds. My shoulders will support half a dozen conservatives, well, not six fatties, but the usual skinny short and sissified ones. Don't worry, I have an image of you too and it is not one of any guys' dreams - unless of course the guy is subject to nightmares.

Have you noticed that ‘awesome’ ends with ‘me,’ and ‘ugly’ begins with ‘u.’

 

[Bfgrn]

Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
January 13, 2014

Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait

President Lyndon Johnson’s visit to Tom Fletcher’s home in Kentucky was part of his tour of poverty stricken areas in the U.S. (Photo by Walter Bennett/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images).


Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to urge “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” The War on Poverty, as the set of social programs enacted in 1964-1965 came to be called, was arguably the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the Great Depression. But for decades, politicians and social scientists have argued about whether Johnson’s antipoverty programs have lifted people out of destitution, trapped them in cycles of dependency, or both.

Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.

What’s inarguable, though, is that the demographics of America’s poor have shifted over the decades. Here’s a look at what has, and hasn’t, changed, based on the official measure. (Note: The reference years vary depending on data availability.)


Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.

But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.

Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.

Poverty is more evenly distributed, though still heaviest in the South: In 1969, 45.9% of poor Americans lived in the South, a region that accounted for 31% of the U.S. population at the time. At 17.9%, the South’s poverty rate was far above other regions. In 2012, the South was home to 37.3% of all Americans and 41.1% of the nation’s poor people; though the South’s poverty rate, 16.5%, was the highest among the four Census-designated regions, it was only 3.2 percentage points above the lowest (the Midwest).

Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).

But poverty has risen among Hispanics. Poverty data for Hispanics, who can be of any race, wasn’t collected until 1972. That year, 22.8% lived below the poverty threshold. In 2012, the share of Hispanics in poverty had risen to 25.6%. But the U.S. Hispanic population has quintupled over that time. As a result, more than half of the 22 million-person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

AGAIN, you didn't even read it...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
January 13, 2014

Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait

President Lyndon Johnson’s visit to Tom Fletcher’s home in Kentucky was part of his tour of poverty stricken areas in the U.S. (Photo by Walter Bennett/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images).


Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to urge “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” The War on Poverty, as the set of social programs enacted in 1964-1965 came to be called, was arguably the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the Great Depression. But for decades, politicians and social scientists have argued about whether Johnson’s antipoverty programs have lifted people out of destitution, trapped them in cycles of dependency, or both.

Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.

What’s inarguable, though, is that the demographics of America’s poor have shifted over the decades. Here’s a look at what has, and hasn’t, changed, based on the official measure. (Note: The reference years vary depending on data availability.)


Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.

But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.

Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.

Poverty is more evenly distributed, though still heaviest in the South: In 1969, 45.9% of poor Americans lived in the South, a region that accounted for 31% of the U.S. population at the time. At 17.9%, the South’s poverty rate was far above other regions. In 2012, the South was home to 37.3% of all Americans and 41.1% of the nation’s poor people; though the South’s poverty rate, 16.5%, was the highest among the four Census-designated regions, it was only 3.2 percentage points above the lowest (the Midwest).

Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).

But poverty has risen among Hispanics. Poverty data for Hispanics, who can be of any race, wasn’t collected until 1972. That year, 22.8% lived below the poverty threshold. In 2012, the share of Hispanics in poverty had risen to 25.6%. But the U.S. Hispanic population has quintupled over that time. As a result, more than half of the 22 million-person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

AGAIN, you didn't even read it...

AGAIN, you didn't understand it: half a century, $22 trillion, and still the same level of poverty.

What kind of dope doesn't understand that as failure?

Raise your paw.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gee, I think it's best to let the narcissist wait.

Wait???

For you??

If I had a dollar for each time I thought about you....I'd start thinking about you.

Ouch, that truly hurts. Let me help, my friends called me "Burt", not for Burt and Ernie, but because I looked like Burt Lancaster. Others nicknamed me Herc, as I'm 6'2" tall and a sleek 225 pounds. My shoulders will support half a dozen conservatives, well, not six fatties, but the usual skinny short and sissified ones. Don't worry, I have an image of you too and it is not one of any guys' dreams - unless of course the guy is subject to nightmares.

Have you noticed that ‘awesome’ ends with ‘me,’ and ‘ugly’ begins with ‘u.’

No, I never noticed, though I'm certain that idiom isn't something you created, rather another effort to establish some cred. by using the words of others. That's sad, and why I pity you.

Since you do stalk me, at least my posts, you're aware (mmm, if you are capable) that I've coined the phrase, 'Willful Ignorance"; a phrase which has made it onto the USMB domain by those on the right and those on the correct side of critical thought. Funny, ain't it, you only get praise from the echo chamber. Well, not funny, predictable. Are you proud to receive 'thanks' from the dumbest among us?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
January 13, 2014

Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait

President Lyndon Johnson’s visit to Tom Fletcher’s home in Kentucky was part of his tour of poverty stricken areas in the U.S. (Photo by Walter Bennett/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images).


Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to urge “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” The War on Poverty, as the set of social programs enacted in 1964-1965 came to be called, was arguably the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the Great Depression. But for decades, politicians and social scientists have argued about whether Johnson’s antipoverty programs have lifted people out of destitution, trapped them in cycles of dependency, or both.

Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.

What’s inarguable, though, is that the demographics of America’s poor have shifted over the decades. Here’s a look at what has, and hasn’t, changed, based on the official measure. (Note: The reference years vary depending on data availability.)


Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.

But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.

Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.

Poverty is more evenly distributed, though still heaviest in the South: In 1969, 45.9% of poor Americans lived in the South, a region that accounted for 31% of the U.S. population at the time. At 17.9%, the South’s poverty rate was far above other regions. In 2012, the South was home to 37.3% of all Americans and 41.1% of the nation’s poor people; though the South’s poverty rate, 16.5%, was the highest among the four Census-designated regions, it was only 3.2 percentage points above the lowest (the Midwest).

Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).

But poverty has risen among Hispanics. Poverty data for Hispanics, who can be of any race, wasn’t collected until 1972. That year, 22.8% lived below the poverty threshold. In 2012, the share of Hispanics in poverty had risen to 25.6%. But the U.S. Hispanic population has quintupled over that time. As a result, more than half of the 22 million-person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

AGAIN, you didn't even read it...

AGAIN, you didn't understand it: half a century, $22 trillion, and still the same level of poverty.

What kind of dope doesn't understand that as failure?

Raise your paw.

An yet, all you offer is "ain't it awful". Fuck those who try to make our short time on this earth easier, safer, more healthful; the ideology consistent with the callous conservative GOP's mantra, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you".

Well fuck you; not that I would, I have principles.

 

[Wry Catcher]

[

Under Franklin Roosevelt- "No depression, or recession, had ever lasted even half this long."

a. 8,020,000 Americans were unemployed in 1931. In 1939, after the 'excellent' decisions by Franklin Roosevelt, there were 9,480,000 unemployed.
Folsom, "New Deal of Raw Deal," p. 3.

Yes, it was a particularly bad recession that had already dragged on for THREE YEARS before FDR got there.

True, other countries got out a little quicker, by totally scrapping that whole "Democracy" thing and having a World War.

It's a BS number of unemployed used and it has been explained to PC in detail in other threads how those unemployment numbers are distorted. All the workers in the public works projects, even the building of three aircraft carriers were counted as unemployed because the were on "relief projects". So, while they collected pay checks for building infrastructure, much of it still being used today, they are declared as unemployed when the actual unemployment number was brought down to 9.6%, as low or lower than the average in the global depression.

Economically, all the people being paid to do "public works projects" were paid from the same source as people who got welfare, the money came out of the economy, the economy that was in depression. While I personally applaud people who would rather work than get something for free, they were still just as big a drag on the economy.

Are you really that stupid!!! Yes, I suppose you are. Bridges were built, electricity was brought to rural America and ten's of thousand American's benefit from the New Deal. You and the rest of the assholes on the far right will never succeed in rewriting history, too many of us graduated from high school and four year colleges and universities to be fooled by jerks, assholes and morons like you.