Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %.
At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.
Uh, PC, the reason why FDR took it over was because after the Capitalists fucked it up as badly as they did in 1929, private charities couldn't get the job done.
NOw, if you want to argue that we need welfare reform, I'm totally there with you. It should be a safety net, not a hammock. I would be all for work requirements and even something like FDR's CCC or WPA to put those folks to work to get a check.
but here's the problem. A lot of the poor ARE working. Big companies like WalMart and McDonalds that pay minimum wage and instruct their employees how to apply for food stamps and medicaid.
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.
The country was out recession in 1933.
That's kind of like saying we are "out of recession" in 2010. Technically true, but a lot of people were suffering.
1929, like 2008, was a WORLD WIDE Depression. and the after effects lasted a lot longer.
[
"... "out of recession" in 2010. Technically true, but a lot of people were suffering."
What a coincidence....both FDR and BHO, Democrat/Liberals.
if it wasn't for FDR they would have been in a world of trouble ... especially when WW2 hit[
So...you actually believe that FDR made things better?????
You should study history.
?
No, people who lived through that time period believed that. I'm old enough to have met them and talked to them.
That's why he was ELECTED FOUR TIMES.
While the rich hated FDR, most working folks know he made their lives better, that they were in FAR better shape thanks to his policies.
have you look at yours ??? that say stupid all over .... with your mr know it all 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 right wing and right wing only talking points ... which 99% of the time isn't worth the time to point out how moronic they are ... then when we do show you how wrong you are you come back with, "how old are you" or "how stupid you are" but you never try to dispute our responses to be incorrect .... thats your way of doing things here ... then we are supposed to take you serious ??? really???Even those lazy bastards that are paraplegic, they'll find you a damn job...After that is done, how long before we win the war on poverty, using your plan of no programs for the poor?
Where did she say she wanted "no programs for the poor"?
What I read is the WAY THE WAR ON POVERTY was fought, i.e. - colossal, ineffective corrupt programs - is a failure. The liberal answer for everything is always - ALWAYS - the same. Create a new government bureaucracy, appropriate massive funds and simply hand it out.
That would actually be awesome if it would work. If all you had to do was build a building, fill it with managers and clerical staff, give them the ability to write checks - and problems went away!! <POOF!>
But at no time in the history of the world has societal problems been solved with the government in charge of handing out money/goods. Never. And never will be.
The answer to poverty is, and will always be - OPPORTUNITY. Not free shit.
People who WANT to get out of poverty can ONLY do so with opportunity to secure income. I.E. - a JOB.
Each day you manage to produce a post so stupid that it must have been produced via the pic in your avi....
And the fact that you believe it to be clever makes it even more stupid.
Uh, PC, the reason why FDR took it over was because after the Capitalists fucked it up as badly as they did in 1929, private charities couldn't get the job done.
NOw, if you want to argue that we need welfare reform, I'm totally there with you. It should be a safety net, not a hammock. I would be all for work requirements and even something like FDR's CCC or WPA to put those folks to work to get a check.
but here's the problem. A lot of the poor ARE working. Big companies like WalMart and McDonalds that pay minimum wage and instruct their employees how to apply for food stamps and medicaid.
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.
The country was out recession in 1933.
That's kind of like saying we are "out of recession" in 2010. Technically true, but a lot of people were suffering.
1929, like 2008, was a WORLD WIDE Depression. and the after effects lasted a lot longer.
"... "out of recession" in 2010. Technically true, but a lot of people were suffering."
What a coincidence....both FDR and BHO, Democrat/Liberals.
now you went and done it Politicalchicken will start with the insults on how old you are or how moronic you are or how stupid you are... while downing aspirin after aspirin ... hell she will even star showing smoke coming out her earsWhat 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?
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
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?
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
right back at ya ... hows that head going so far ??? are ya out of aspirin yet???have you look at yours ??? that say stupid all over .... with your mr know it all 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 right wing and right wing only talking points ... which 99% of the time isn't worth the time to point out how moronic they are ... then when we do show you how wrong you are you come back with, "how old are you" or "how stupid you are" but you never try to dispute our responses to be incorrect .... thats your way of doing things here ... then we are supposed to take you serious ??? really???Even those lazy bastards that are paraplegic, they'll find you a damn job...After that is done, how long before we win the war on poverty, using your plan of no programs for the poor?
Where did she say she wanted "no programs for the poor"?
What I read is the WAY THE WAR ON POVERTY was fought, i.e. - colossal, ineffective corrupt programs - is a failure. The liberal answer for everything is always - ALWAYS - the same. Create a new government bureaucracy, appropriate massive funds and simply hand it out.
That would actually be awesome if it would work. If all you had to do was build a building, fill it with managers and clerical staff, give them the ability to write checks - and problems went away!! <POOF!>
But at no time in the history of the world has societal problems been solved with the government in charge of handing out money/goods. Never. And never will be.
The answer to poverty is, and will always be - OPPORTUNITY. Not free shit.
People who WANT to get out of poverty can ONLY do so with opportunity to secure income. I.E. - a JOB.
Each day you manage to produce a post so stupid that it must have been produced via the pic in your avi....
And the fact that you believe it to be clever makes it even more stupid.
"...then we are supposed to take you serious ??? really???"
No, dummy.
I don't expect you to take me any more seriously than you took getting an education.
like always you points haven't any baring on today... just you trying to show off that vast knowledge of yours ... you should invest in aspirin stockFunny how so called Christians always like to fight anti-poverty and never, ever use Jesus Christ as an example of bad when it comes to charity...equality and knowing that accumulating vast amounts of wealth is wicked and a sin...
Yet these people are the first to fly the banner of being christian when it suits them....
Time for drop-draw's educational moment.
Christian charity was the way to go, and in effect until Stalin's pal FDR took it over.
1. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...." "Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.
2. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.
3. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.
4. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."
The able-bodied were expected to find work,and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.
A cornerstone of the Liberal philosophy is that one never make judgments about the behavior of other.
Notice how that view eliminates the compassion and charity prevalent in an earlier America, one in which 'need' was the driver, not 'want.'
Hard to believe how many have been convinced to support the proven stupidity of today's "welfare system."
if it wasn't for FDR they would have been in a world of trouble ... especially when WW2 hit[
So...you actually believe that FDR made things better?????
You should study history.
?
No, people who lived through that time period believed that. I'm old enough to have met them and talked to them.
That's why he was ELECTED FOUR TIMES.
While the rich hated FDR, most working folks know he made their lives better, that they were in FAR better shape thanks to his policies.
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.[
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.
more right wing distortions .... we get it ...take a aspirin .... your ability to post facts isWhat 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?
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.
[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.
- 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.
- 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
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.
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?
[
"... "out of recession" in 2010. Technically true, but a lot of people were suffering."
What a coincidence....both FDR and BHO, Democrat/Liberals.
What a coincidence, both cleaning up the messes left by Hoover and Bush.
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?
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.
[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.
- 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.
- 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
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.
now you went and done it Politicalchicken will start with the insults on how old you are or how moronic you are or how stupid you are... while downing aspirin after aspirin ... hell she will even star showing smoke coming out her earsWhat 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?
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
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.[
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.[
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.
