The War On Poverty: Lost

[NYcarbineer]

Funny 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."

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 stock

"... just you trying to show off that vast knowledge of yours...."

I can't deny the 'vast' part.....

...see, you made me blush.

You turned orange?

lol, sorry.

[

"... "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.

Look at you! Wrong on both counts!


1. FDR extended the recession into a depession

2. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession."
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the Recovery as During the Recession The Weekly Standard

Perhaps you missed the chart:

 

[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?

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.

 

[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.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

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.

Liar.



Here is an interesting visual: imagine a triple line of the unemployed, three across, consisting of those unemployed under Hoover, in 1931. The line would have gone from Los Angeles, across the country, to the border of Maine.

What effect did Roosevelt have on the line?

Well, eight years later, in 1939, the length of the line would have gone further, from the Maine border, south to Boston, then on to New York City, then to Philadelphia, on to Washington, D.C.- and finally, into Virginia.
Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal"

Check it out at the US Bureau of the Census, 'Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, I-126 and Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

Your link says the number of unemployed peaked in 1933.

More vindication for FDR.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Every one of PCs threads is just like the others -- long on liberal hate and short on facts.

If Obama saved the world, PC would insist that his Chiropractor actually saved it DESPITE Obungler getting in the way.

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

You must be a government school grad, huh?

 

[kaz]

Every one of PCs threads is just like the others -- long on liberal hate and short on facts.

Chic's OP post is full of facts. What are you talking about?

We've spent trillions on a "War on Poverty" that hasn't dented poverty rates. That doesn't even make you blink?

 

[Camp]

[

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.

Remember that next time you travel over the Triborough Bridge or through the Lincoln Tunnel. All the workers who built them were "unemployed".

 

[billyerock1991]

[

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.

if it wasn't for FDR they would have been in a world of trouble ... especially when WW2 hit

"if it wasn't for FDR they would have been in a world of trouble .."

Education coming right up:


1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

2. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI

and the responses even get more jaded by Politicalchicken .... you keep trying ... when you start printing the whole truth then we can take you serious but these little short stories of your a one opinion statements we might take you serious but your partisan opinions are, how did you say, Retarded ....

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

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.

if it wasn't for FDR they would have been in a world of trouble ... especially when WW2 hit

"if it wasn't for FDR they would have been in a world of trouble .."

Education coming right up:


1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

2. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI

and the responses even get more jaded by Politicalchicken .... you keep trying ... when you start printing the whole truth then we can take you serious but these little short stories of your a one opinion statements we might take you serious but your partisan opinions are, how did you say, Retarded ....

See if you can find an adult willing to help you get a library card.

Know what a library is?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every one of PCs threads is just like the others -- long on liberal hate and short on facts.

Chic's OP post is full of facts. What are you talking about?

We've spent trillions on a "War on Poverty" that hasn't dented poverty rates. That doesn't even make you blink?

The poverty rate is calculated before government benefits are counted. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the unemployment rate goes from 24.75% in 1933 to 9.66% in 1941,

and somehow FDR made things worse.

lol.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

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.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Look at you! Wrong on both counts!


1. FDR extended the recession into a depession

2. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession."
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the Recovery as During the Recession The Weekly Standard

Cutting and pasting your way through life is a cheap trick to avoid thinking.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

PC thinks that all things Liberal are evil, but she never actually posts the facts, just the opinions of a bunch of fruitcakes.

Monetary reform

Under the gold standard, the United States kept the Dollar convertible to gold. The FED would have had to execute an expansionary monetary policy to fight the deflation and to inject liquidity into the banking system to prevent it from crumbling—but lower interest rates would have led to an gold outflow.[40] Under the gold standards price–specie flow mechanism countries that lost gold but nevertheless wanted to maintain the gold standard had to permit their money supply to decrease and the domestic price level to decline (deflation).[41] As long as the FED had to defend the gold parity of the Dollar it had to sit idle while the banking system crumbled.[40]

In March and April in a series of laws and executive orders, the government suspended the gold standard. Roosevelt stopped the outflow of gold by forbidding the export of gold except under license from the Treasury. Anyone holding significant amounts of gold coinage was mandated to exchange it for the existing fixed price of US dollars. The Treasury no longer paid out gold in exchange for dollars, and gold would no longer be considered valid legal tender for debts in private and public contracts.[42]

The dollar was allowed to float freely on foreign exchange markets with no guaranteed price in gold. With the passage of the Gold Reserve Act in 1934 the nominal price of gold was changed from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35. These measures enabled the Fed to increase the amount of money in circulation to the level the economy needed. Markets immediately responded well to the suspension, in the hope that the decline in prices would finally end.[42] In her work What ended the Great Depression? (1992) Christina Romer argued that this policy raised industrial production by 25% until 1937 and by 50% until 1942.

New Deal - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[boedicca]

It was NEVER a War on Poverty. It was a War For Bigger Government.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

2. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession."
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the Recovery as During the Recession The Weekly Standard

^^^^ Right-wing blogs do NOT COUNT as a valid source for ANY information.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Actually, Jesus said to render onto Caesar what is Caesar. Caesar picture on the coin, must be his money.

I guess if he lived today, he's day "Render onto Washington what is Washington's".

Actually, this is one of the most misquoted and misrepresented versus in the Bible.
And virtually always quoted with out context.
The context was Jesus was surrounded by Jews who wanted to trap him by the question, knowing that if he publicly stated that he opposed taxation - they could hand him over to the authorities to be arrested.
Jesus then called them hypocrites (because they were exceedingly wealthy and spent most of their time acquiring wealth), and asked for one of them to produce a Roman coin; which they did. He asked them "And whose face is on this coin?" - they answered "Caesar" - so Jesus replied "render unto Caesar to what is Caesar, and to God what is God's"
It is a statement about devotion to God, not about duty to pay taxes.
Your welcome.

So Jesus told them to pay their fucking taxes and shut up about it? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

That whooshing sound you just heard was the same point flying over your head.

 

[Camp]

livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/money_13.html

For those interested in a more objective account of the Depression, particularly by the farming community, this is an interesting read that covers the basics of FDR policies and how the New Deal effected every day average Americans.

 

[Mac1958]

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

Your usual vacuous bluster...

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

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Every one of PCs threads is just like the others -- long on liberal hate and short on facts.

If Obama saved the world, PC would insist that his Chiropractor actually saved it DESPITE Obungler getting in the way.

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.