"There is no Black or White America, there is the Untied States of America"

[theDoctorisIn]

The "racial tension" you speak of only exists in the minds of scared white people who get all their information about Blacks from television. In the real world, it doesn't exist.

Nah the hatred exsists, and it's boiled over a few times.

Of course the "hatred" exists, see any post by Steve McKKK for reference.

But it's better now than it's ever been before.

But to hear liberals, it's the Jim Crow Era part II.

No, actually I only ever hear "Conservatives" who think it's that bad.

You know, "like 1963 all over again".

I think you are ensconced within a world where there can never be any racial tension, simply because there isn't.

I hear democrats decrying racism all the time, they are the ones who bred this atmosphere of racial tension and then deny it exists. Nothing personal, Doc but you delude yourself into thinking we live in complete racial harmony. We don't, because recent events have demonstrated that there isn't anything of the sort.

I'm a white guy who lives in Oakland, I think the world that I'm "ensconced within" is probably a better indicator of "racial tension" than wherever you live.

What "recent events" have demonstrated this "racial tension" for you?

Are you referring to the recent protests/riots against police brutality that Conservatives have frantically tried to make about "race"?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The "racial tension" you speak of only exists in the minds of scared white people who get all their information about Blacks from television. In the real world, it doesn't exist.

I hope you're joking.

Please demonstrate to me how racial tension doesn't exist in America.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to explain this, but it's not my job to prove a negative.

Please demonstrate how it's "like 1963 all over again".

You were the one who made the assertion, therefore it isn't my responsibility to prove anything to you.

You insist there is no racial tension, so I ask, how not?

Have the riots not demonstrated how high the tensions have become?

I wouldn't say that there is "no" racial tension. There has not been a recent increase in it, though - and I'd go so far as to say that it's better now than it's ever been in this country.

Nevertheless, the riots and protests have been about police brutality, not "racial tension". You guys are the ones trying to make it about "race".

 

[TemplarKormac]

The "racial tension" you speak of only exists in the minds of scared white people who get all their information about Blacks from television. In the real world, it doesn't exist.

I hope you're joking.

Please demonstrate to me how racial tension doesn't exist in America.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to explain this, but it's not my job to prove a negative.

Please demonstrate how it's "like 1963 all over again".

You were the one who made the assertion, therefore it isn't my responsibility to prove anything to you.

You insist there is no racial tension, so I ask, how not?

Have the riots not demonstrated how high the tensions have become?

I wouldn't say that there is "no" racial tension. There has not been a recent increase in it, though - and I'd go so far as to say that it's better now than it's ever been in this country.

Nevertheless, the riots and protests have been about police brutality, not "racial tension". You guys are the ones trying to make it about "race".

Then why are liberals focusing on the race of the officer and the person he offensed? And how exactly have we made it about race? If the issue was really police brutality, nobody would be worried about race. But here we are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nah the hatred exsists, and it's boiled over a few times.

Of course the "hatred" exists, see any post by Steve McKKK for reference.

But it's better now than it's ever been before.

But to hear liberals, it's the Jim Crow Era part II.

No, actually I only ever hear "Conservatives" who think it's that bad.

You know, "like 1963 all over again".

I think you are ensconced within a world where there can never be any racial tension, simply because there isn't.

I hear democrats decrying racism all the time, they are the ones who bred this atmosphere of racial tension and then deny it exists. Nothing personal, Doc but you delude yourself into thinking we live in complete racial harmony. We don't, because recent events have demonstrated that there isn't anything of the sort.

I'm a white guy who lives in Oakland, I think the world that I'm "ensconced within" is probably a better indicator of "racial tension" than wherever you live.

What "recent events" have demonstrated this "racial tension" for you?

Are you referring to the recent protests/riots against police brutality that Conservatives have frantically tried to make about "race"?

You can live on Pride Rock and believe everything the light touches is your kingdom.

But I live in the South, Doc. Most of the historical racism in America was perpetrated here. I think I have a better idea about what is or isn't racism than a white guy living in Oakland does. We are often accused of racism when it isn't the case, stereotyped in fact.

Conservatives aren't the ones making this issue about race, liberals are. Their knee-jerk reaction if a white cop shoots a black person is the cop only did it because of racism.

Look at the the Trayvon Martin case. Liberals started leaping to conclusions, Zimmerman was a racist white man stalking an innocent black kid with intent to kill. Zimmerman was half Latino, and Martin was the one who tried to kill Zimmerman. But Al Sharpton had already stirred the black community into apoplectics.

No, Conservatives haven't made any of this about race. Just ask the Liberal AG Loretta Lynch, look at Mayor Blake, wanting to eviscerate a police department for alleged acts of racism against black detainees.

No sir, your accusations are misplaced. We are not the ones obsessed with race.

 

[Jroc]

Those are some pretty weak “acompilshments” actually, and for the record most poor Backs were eligible for Medicaid before any “Obamacare” and I’m sure we could have paid for insurance for every uninsured American for less money then it’s taking to set up Obamacare

If your responses to my arguments are intended to expose said “weakness” you’ve failed miserably.
For one thing, the PPACA as been a godsend from the onset. Millions of people without healthcare are now on the rolls and millions of former emergency room free loaders are either paying fines or are actively enrolled and paying premiums.. But it doesn’t stop there. MEDICAID served as a vehicle for the further distribution of wealth from the poor and middle classed Americans to the rich. To be eligible, one had to be devoid of funds and virtually all liquid assets. Even then, hospitals and doctors were reluctant to accept Medicaid patients because of limits or caps on what MEDICAID paid for.

Your notion that the PPACA costs the government more to sustain than the old corrupt inflated healthcare system is ludicrous. I’ve already shown that medical inflation under Obamcare has dropped to the lowest rate in 50 years. Add to that the money generated by new enrollees and or, penalties for a comparison with the old system you don’t want to see.

We could have paid for private insurance for these people for less money than it costs setting up Obama care. almost a billion dollars for a web-site? what is it with you leftist? You think spending tons of money creating more bureaucracy ,wasting more money maintaining that bureaucracy is a good thing. Tens of trillions of dollars spent and most of the problems are worst than ever

Tens of trillions? Yawwnnn! Where are your links? Yawwnnn! I'd also like to see your references for the comparative cost of Obamacare vs your health scenario...got any charts or data to back that assertion up?

Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.

Yet today, 15 percent of Americans still live in poverty. That’s scarcely better than the 19 percent living in poverty at the time of Johnson’s speech. Nearly 22 percent of children live in poverty today. In 1964, it was 23 percent.

How could we have spent so much and achieved so little?

It’s not just a question of the inefficiency of government bureaucracies, although the multiplicity of programs and overlapping jurisdiction surely means that there is a lack of accountability within the system. Rather, the entire concept behind how we fight poverty is wrong.

The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable — giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, etc. — rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty. As a result, we have been successful in reducing the worst privations of poverty. Few Americans live with out the basic necessities of life, yet neither do they rise out of poverty. Moreover, their children are also likely to be poor.

Our goal should not be a society where people struggle along in poverty, dependent on government for just enough to survive, but rather a society where as few people as possible live in poverty, and where every American can reach his or her full potential.

War on Poverty at 50 -- Despite Trillions Spent Poverty Won Cato Institute

The heart of the War on Poverty report is its observation that most federal poverty-alleviation programs are essentially useless or incapable of having their impact measured in the real world.

The study observes that in 1965, the poverty rate was 17.3 percent. In 2012, it was 15 percent. This means taxpayers blew a staggering $20.7 trillion over the last half century in order to achieve a paltry 2.3 percentage point decrease in poverty.

The War on Poverty has barely made a dent in actual poverty
Broken down into less mind-blowing, easier-to-grasp figures, between 1965 and 2012 the average family of four spent roughly $146,000 per percentage-point drop in poverty, or $335,000 per family for the whole 2.3 percentage-point reduction.

Only the most blinkered or jaded among us in the body politic believe that sucking $9 trillion out of the private, productive economy for each single percentage-point reduction in the poverty rate constitutes an acceptable return on investment.

Which brings us to the modern “progressive” Left.

Those on the Left consider the gentle statistical dip in poverty over five decades to be social progress achieved by way of holy coercive redistribution. Mere results have always been less important to the Left than intentions.

The War on Poverty 21 Trillion Later

The War on Poverty 50 Years Later Budget.House.Gov

Well, thanks for the links. So, OK, 50 years have gone by with both GOP and democrat administrations at the helm... Why are you blaming Obama? Why didn't Reagan or the Bushes eliminate it on their watches? Oh, I forgot, you conservatives don't care about poverty except as a tool to use against the Democrats. When your guys are in the WH poverty becomes a non issue.

Now where did all that money go? Who profited from the War on Poverty? I suspect the rich got richer and the poor got poorer because of the War on Poverty. That money just didn't disappear. The poor got stiffed and the people who gained (republicans) get to point the finger at democrats for the spending that benefitted Republicans. Its not as simple s that but that is the way it is broadcast for the general gullible public to digest.

So, while laughing all the way to the banks they own, the republicans don't thank Johnson for initiating their cash cow ( the war on poverty] No! Now they want to win back the presidency and Congress so they can legislate more ways to keep all that dough and not have to share it in any way form or fashion.

Obama is building on it tremendously. Republicans are also big spenders. Conservatives need to take over the Republican party, then win elections or eventually or all the big spenders will collapsed the economy.The problem is, too much demagoguery by the leftist, hate mongers and race baiters like Obama and his leftist buddies. He should be ashamed at what has happened to race relations in this country since he became president. He's not though, hate, jealously and crises help the leftist...

 

[Jroc]

Nothing has changed all that much with or without Obama

Really? My grandmother thinks its 1963 all over again, all this racial tension is a direct result of Obama. He has done nothing to help the black Americans living in poverty. Nothing. And yes, nothing changed, at least not for them. He has done more to turn them against whites and republicans than anything else.

No! Temp, I disagree with you. Obama isn't causing policemen to shoot unarmed people in the back or choke them to death. Those actions would have caused protests and racial tensions no matter WHO was in the Oval Office. The age of the cell-phone camera has also brought the graphic details right into our living rooms via news media.

I keep hearing that same old refrain from you and the Cons that Obama has done nothing to help Back people. That is disingenuous malarkey and you know it. I've said it before but I'll repeat it once more for the "gipper" fans. Obama can't, as president show favoritism to poor Blacks or minorities. He has to be president for all the people within the framework of the US Constitution and the Democrat platform. anything he does for Blacks has to be inclusive for all poor Americans; regardless of race, creed or color.And even then, he can't do it alone and without Constitutional precedent.

Obama doesn't show favoritism towards black Americans, He uses them and he's not the president of all the people, he's president of the bureaucracy. He's the Chairman of it. He feeds it and he'd like to be the one who picks the winners and losers. the working poor and minorities suffer the most under people like Obama. He stifles American ingenuity in favor of big government control. Obama's war on police is making poor neighborhoods more dangerous certainly not safer.

 

[JQPublic1]

If your responses to my arguments are intended to expose said “weakness” you’ve failed miserably.
For one thing, the PPACA as been a godsend from the onset. Millions of people without healthcare are now on the rolls and millions of former emergency room free loaders are either paying fines or are actively enrolled and paying premiums.. But it doesn’t stop there. MEDICAID served as a vehicle for the further distribution of wealth from the poor and middle classed Americans to the rich. To be eligible, one had to be devoid of funds and virtually all liquid assets. Even then, hospitals and doctors were reluctant to accept Medicaid patients because of limits or caps on what MEDICAID paid for.

Your notion that the PPACA costs the government more to sustain than the old corrupt inflated healthcare system is ludicrous. I’ve already shown that medical inflation under Obamcare has dropped to the lowest rate in 50 years. Add to that the money generated by new enrollees and or, penalties for a comparison with the old system you don’t want to see.

We could have paid for private insurance for these people for less money than it costs setting up Obama care. almost a billion dollars for a web-site? what is it with you leftist? You think spending tons of money creating more bureaucracy ,wasting more money maintaining that bureaucracy is a good thing. Tens of trillions of dollars spent and most of the problems are worst than ever

Tens of trillions? Yawwnnn! Where are your links? Yawwnnn! I'd also like to see your references for the comparative cost of Obamacare vs your health scenario...got any charts or data to back that assertion up?

Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.

Yet today, 15 percent of Americans still live in poverty. That’s scarcely better than the 19 percent living in poverty at the time of Johnson’s speech. Nearly 22 percent of children live in poverty today. In 1964, it was 23 percent.

How could we have spent so much and achieved so little?

It’s not just a question of the inefficiency of government bureaucracies, although the multiplicity of programs and overlapping jurisdiction surely means that there is a lack of accountability within the system. Rather, the entire concept behind how we fight poverty is wrong.

The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable — giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, etc. — rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty. As a result, we have been successful in reducing the worst privations of poverty. Few Americans live with out the basic necessities of life, yet neither do they rise out of poverty. Moreover, their children are also likely to be poor.

Our goal should not be a society where people struggle along in poverty, dependent on government for just enough to survive, but rather a society where as few people as possible live in poverty, and where every American can reach his or her full potential.

War on Poverty at 50 -- Despite Trillions Spent Poverty Won Cato Institute

The heart of the War on Poverty report is its observation that most federal poverty-alleviation programs are essentially useless or incapable of having their impact measured in the real world.

The study observes that in 1965, the poverty rate was 17.3 percent. In 2012, it was 15 percent. This means taxpayers blew a staggering $20.7 trillion over the last half century in order to achieve a paltry 2.3 percentage point decrease in poverty.

The War on Poverty has barely made a dent in actual poverty
Broken down into less mind-blowing, easier-to-grasp figures, between 1965 and 2012 the average family of four spent roughly $146,000 per percentage-point drop in poverty, or $335,000 per family for the whole 2.3 percentage-point reduction.

Only the most blinkered or jaded among us in the body politic believe that sucking $9 trillion out of the private, productive economy for each single percentage-point reduction in the poverty rate constitutes an acceptable return on investment.

Which brings us to the modern “progressive” Left.

Those on the Left consider the gentle statistical dip in poverty over five decades to be social progress achieved by way of holy coercive redistribution. Mere results have always been less important to the Left than intentions.

The War on Poverty 21 Trillion Later

The War on Poverty 50 Years Later Budget.House.Gov

Well, thanks for the links. So, OK, 50 years have gone by with both GOP and democrat administrations at the helm... Why are you blaming Obama? Why didn't Reagan or the Bushes eliminate it on their watches? Oh, I forgot, you conservatives don't care about poverty except as a tool to use against the Democrats. When your guys are in the WH poverty becomes a non issue.

Now where did all that money go? Who profited from the War on Poverty? I suspect the rich got richer and the poor got poorer because of the War on Poverty. That money just didn't disappear. The poor got stiffed and the people who gained (republicans) get to point the finger at democrats for the spending that benefitted Republicans. Its not as simple s that but that is the way it is broadcast for the general gullible public to digest.

So, while laughing all the way to the banks they own, the republicans don't thank Johnson for initiating their cash cow ( the war on poverty] No! Now they want to win back the presidency and Congress so they can legislate more ways to keep all that dough and not have to share it in any way form or fashion.

Obama is building on it tremendously. Republicans are also big spenders. Conservatives need to take over the Republican party, then win elections or eventually or all the big spenders will collapsed the economy.The problem is, too much demagoguery by the leftist, hate mongers and race baiters like Obama and his leftist buddies. He should be ashamed at what has happened to race relations in this country since he became president. He's not though, hate, jealously and crises help the leftist...

Nice Dodge. Did you miss the part of my narrative pertaining to Republicans profiting
from the War on Poverty? No comment?

Are you ready for the truth? Here it comes, ready or not.


Were you even born when Reagan was president? if you were alive then you were very young and you probably weren't into politics at all. I was alive then and I remember the divide and conquer strategy used by the Republicans, specifically Reagan Republicans. That attempt to divide and conquer went on for 40 years; and, judging by your commentary, that timeworn outdated GOP strategy is still working to divide. The conquering portion though, has been somewhat problematic. Yes you won the majority of Congress seats back by using the same divisive strategy but I think that tactic just might have run it's course. And now the twist is to shift the blame on to Obama as being the great divider. Well, good luck with that.

Were you even born when Reagan was president? if you were alive then you were very young and you probably weren't into politics at all. I was alive then and I remember the divide and conquer strategy used by the Republicans, specifically Reagan Republicans. That attempt to divide and conquer went on for 40 years; and, judging by your commentary, that timeworn outdated GOP strategy is still working to divide. The conquering portion though, has been somewhat problematic. Yes you won the majority of Congress seats back by using the same divisive strategy but I think that tactic just might have run it's course. And now the twist is to shift the blame on to Obama as being the great divider. Well, good luck with that.

almost forty years Republicans have pursued a divide-and-conquer strategy intended to convince working-class whites that the poor were their enemies. The Republicans told the working class that its hard-earned tax dollars were being siphoned off to pay for “welfare queens” (as Ronald Reagan decorously dubbed a black single woman on welfare) and other nefarious loafers
.

The poor were “them” — lazy, dependent on government handouts and overwhelmingly black — in sharp contrast to “us,” who were working ever harder, proudly independent (even sending wives and mothers to work, in order to prop up family incomes dragged down by shrinking male paychecks) and white. [ /quote ]





1.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What should he have done differently?

Telling the truth would be a nice change.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nothing has changed all that much with or without Obama

Really? My grandmother thinks its 1963 all over again, all this racial tension is a direct result of Obama. He has done nothing to help the black Americans living in poverty. Nothing. And yes, nothing changed, at least not for them. He has done more to turn them against whites and republicans than anything else.

The "racial tension" you speak of only exists in the minds of scared white people who get all their information about Blacks from television. In the real world, it doesn't exist.

And for the record, no we don't. I couldn't find this poll on my phone when I was debating you last night, but here it is. It took 28 years for race relations to improve after the Civil Rights Act was passed, and it has taken 20 years for all of that progress to be erased.

CBS News New York Times poll Race relations in America - CBS News


There was a reason my grandmother said what she said. She knows what racial tension looks like having grown up in a small Georgia town one mile from the South Carolina border. She remembers that around 62-63, some folks from Washington DC came to Athens in flashy black Cadillacs and riots soon followed. She was and still is the type of woman who believes in the fair treatment of her fellow men, no matter what color they are.

She knows, Doc, and this poll proves her right.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Nothing has changed all that much with or without Obama

Really? My grandmother thinks its 1963 all over again, all this racial tension is a direct result of Obama. He has done nothing to help the black Americans living in poverty. Nothing. And yes, nothing changed, at least not for them. He has done more to turn them against whites and republicans than anything else.

The "racial tension" you speak of only exists in the minds of scared white people who get all their information about Blacks from television. In the real world, it doesn't exist.

And for the record, no we don't. I couldn't find this poll on my phone when I was debating you last night, but here it is. It took 28 years for race relations to improve after the Civil Rights Act was passed, and it has taken 20 years for all of that progress to be erased. There was a reason my grandmother said what she said. She knows what racial tension looks like having been a white woman working at an all white University of Georgia in 1969, integration of the University finally came along and sparked two riots here in Athens, she was caught in both of them and had her car almost flipped by an angry mob.

She knows, Doc, and this poll proves her right.

CBS News New York Times poll Race relations in America - CBS News

A poll doesn't prove anything other than "this is what people think at this exact moment".

Objective reality is not determined by public opinion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nothing has changed all that much with or without Obama

Really? My grandmother thinks its 1963 all over again, all this racial tension is a direct result of Obama. He has done nothing to help the black Americans living in poverty. Nothing. And yes, nothing changed, at least not for them. He has done more to turn them against whites and republicans than anything else.

The "racial tension" you speak of only exists in the minds of scared white people who get all their information about Blacks from television. In the real world, it doesn't exist.

And for the record, no we don't. I couldn't find this poll on my phone when I was debating you last night, but here it is. It took 28 years for race relations to improve after the Civil Rights Act was passed, and it has taken 20 years for all of that progress to be erased. There was a reason my grandmother said what she said. She knows what racial tension looks like having been a white woman working at an all white University of Georgia in 1969, integration of the University finally came along and sparked two riots here in Athens, she was caught in both of them and had her car almost flipped by an angry mob.

She knows, Doc, and this poll proves her right.

CBS News New York Times poll Race relations in America - CBS News

A poll doesn't prove anything other than "this is what people think at this exact moment".

Objective reality is not determined by public opinion.

Nor is it determined by living in Oakland either. No offense.

 

[JQPublic1]

Nothing has changed all that much with or without Obama

Really? My grandmother thinks its 1963 all over again, all this racial tension is a direct result of Obama. He has done nothing to help the black Americans living in poverty. Nothing. And yes, nothing changed, at least not for them. He has done more to turn them against whites and republicans than anything else.

The "racial tension" you speak of only exists in the minds of scared white people who get all their information about Blacks from television. In the real world, it doesn't exist.

And for the record, no we don't. I couldn't find this poll on my phone when I was debating you last night, but here it is. It took 28 years for race relations to improve after the Civil Rights Act was passed, and it has taken 20 years for all of that progress to be erased.

CBS News New York Times poll Race relations in America - CBS News


There was a reason my grandmother said what she said. She knows what racial tension looks like having grown up in a small Georgia town one mile from the South Carolina border. She remembers that around 62-63, some folks from Washington DC came to Athens in flashy black Cadillacs and riots soon followed. She was and still is the type of woman who believes in the fair treatment of her fellow men, no matter what color they are.

She knows, Doc, and this poll proves her right.

What Athens Georgia Riots occurred in 1962-63? The closet proximation is the 1970 Augusta Riot.
Do you have something valid to the contrary? Athens is miles away from Augusta an even further away from the South Carolina border..far more than a mile.. Ae you making things up again or what?

I can hardly wait to see how you try to squirm out of that one. :tapdance:

Ironically, that 1970 riot stands as vindication of my original statement that nothing has changed since with or without Obama. That emboldened text says it all. The cops are still shooting Blacks in the back and when they are unarmed.

The Augusta (Georgia) Riot of 1970 began on the evening of May 11 and ended before dawn the next day. During the riot, six people were killed, all black men, each one shot in the back by police.

 

[Jroc]

Great pic of two race baiters...

55 percent say race relations 'worse' under Obama, just 8 percent 'better'

The latest Economist/YouGov poll on the issue found that 55 percent believe race relations are worse under Obama, while just 8 percent say relations have improved.


Since Barack Obama has been president, do you think race relations in the United States have gotten better, gotten worse or stayed about the same?"

Gotten better: 8 percent

Stayed about the same: 30 percent

Gotten worse: 55 percent

Not sure: 7 percent

Poll 55 percent say race relations worse under Obama just 8 percent better WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[Roadrunner]

What should he have done differently?

Told his homeys to pull up their fuckin' pants and get a job!!

Too late for that now; he will go down as the worst Pres in history.

 

[Jroc]

We could have paid for private insurance for these people for less money than it costs setting up Obama care. almost a billion dollars for a web-site? what is it with you leftist? You think spending tons of money creating more bureaucracy ,wasting more money maintaining that bureaucracy is a good thing. Tens of trillions of dollars spent and most of the problems are worst than ever

Tens of trillions? Yawwnnn! Where are your links? Yawwnnn! I'd also like to see your references for the comparative cost of Obamacare vs your health scenario...got any charts or data to back that assertion up?

Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.

Yet today, 15 percent of Americans still live in poverty. That’s scarcely better than the 19 percent living in poverty at the time of Johnson’s speech. Nearly 22 percent of children live in poverty today. In 1964, it was 23 percent.

How could we have spent so much and achieved so little?

It’s not just a question of the inefficiency of government bureaucracies, although the multiplicity of programs and overlapping jurisdiction surely means that there is a lack of accountability within the system. Rather, the entire concept behind how we fight poverty is wrong.

The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable — giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, etc. — rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty. As a result, we have been successful in reducing the worst privations of poverty. Few Americans live with out the basic necessities of life, yet neither do they rise out of poverty. Moreover, their children are also likely to be poor.

Our goal should not be a society where people struggle along in poverty, dependent on government for just enough to survive, but rather a society where as few people as possible live in poverty, and where every American can reach his or her full potential.

War on Poverty at 50 -- Despite Trillions Spent Poverty Won Cato Institute

The heart of the War on Poverty report is its observation that most federal poverty-alleviation programs are essentially useless or incapable of having their impact measured in the real world.

The study observes that in 1965, the poverty rate was 17.3 percent. In 2012, it was 15 percent. This means taxpayers blew a staggering $20.7 trillion over the last half century in order to achieve a paltry 2.3 percentage point decrease in poverty.

The War on Poverty has barely made a dent in actual poverty
Broken down into less mind-blowing, easier-to-grasp figures, between 1965 and 2012 the average family of four spent roughly $146,000 per percentage-point drop in poverty, or $335,000 per family for the whole 2.3 percentage-point reduction.

Only the most blinkered or jaded among us in the body politic believe that sucking $9 trillion out of the private, productive economy for each single percentage-point reduction in the poverty rate constitutes an acceptable return on investment.

Which brings us to the modern “progressive” Left.

Those on the Left consider the gentle statistical dip in poverty over five decades to be social progress achieved by way of holy coercive redistribution. Mere results have always been less important to the Left than intentions.

The War on Poverty 21 Trillion Later

The War on Poverty 50 Years Later Budget.House.Gov

Well, thanks for the links. So, OK, 50 years have gone by with both GOP and democrat administrations at the helm... Why are you blaming Obama? Why didn't Reagan or the Bushes eliminate it on their watches? Oh, I forgot, you conservatives don't care about poverty except as a tool to use against the Democrats. When your guys are in the WH poverty becomes a non issue.

Now where did all that money go? Who profited from the War on Poverty? I suspect the rich got richer and the poor got poorer because of the War on Poverty. That money just didn't disappear. The poor got stiffed and the people who gained (republicans) get to point the finger at democrats for the spending that benefitted Republicans. Its not as simple s that but that is the way it is broadcast for the general gullible public to digest.

So, while laughing all the way to the banks they own, the republicans don't thank Johnson for initiating their cash cow ( the war on poverty] No! Now they want to win back the presidency and Congress so they can legislate more ways to keep all that dough and not have to share it in any way form or fashion.

Obama is building on it tremendously. Republicans are also big spenders. Conservatives need to take over the Republican party, then win elections or eventually or all the big spenders will collapsed the economy.The problem is, too much demagoguery by the leftist, hate mongers and race baiters like Obama and his leftist buddies. He should be ashamed at what has happened to race relations in this country since he became president. He's not though, hate, jealously and crises help the leftist...

Nice Dodge. Did you miss the part of my narrative pertaining to Republicans profiting
from the War on Poverty? No comment?

Are you ready for the truth? Here it comes, ready or not.


Were you even born when Reagan was president? if you were alive then you were very young and you probably weren't into politics at all. I was alive then and I remember the divide and conquer strategy used by the Republicans, specifically Reagan Republicans. That attempt to divide and conquer went on for 40 years; and, judging by your commentary, that timeworn outdated GOP strategy is still working to divide. The conquering portion though, has been somewhat problematic. Yes you won the majority of Congress seats back by using the same divisive strategy but I think that tactic just might have run it's course. And now the twist is to shift the blame on to Obama as being the great divider. Well, good luck with that.

Were you even born when Reagan was president? if you were alive then you were very young and you probably weren't into politics at all. I was alive then and I remember the divide and conquer strategy used by the Republicans, specifically Reagan Republicans. That attempt to divide and conquer went on for 40 years; and, judging by your commentary, that timeworn outdated GOP strategy is still working to divide. The conquering portion though, has been somewhat problematic. Yes you won the majority of Congress seats back by using the same divisive strategy but I think that tactic just might have run it's course. And now the twist is to shift the blame on to Obama as being the great divider. Well, good luck with that.

almost forty years Republicans have pursued a divide-and-conquer strategy intended to convince working-class whites that the poor were their enemies. The Republicans told the working class that its hard-earned tax dollars were being siphoned off to pay for “welfare queens” (as Ronald Reagan decorously dubbed a black single woman on welfare) and other nefarious loafers
.

The poor were “them” — lazy, dependent on government handouts and overwhelmingly black — in sharp contrast to “us,” who were working ever harder, proudly independent (even sending wives and mothers to work, in order to prop up family incomes dragged down by shrinking male paychecks) and white. [ /quote ]





1.

Blacks did far better under Reagan genius, and no I'm not too young to remember. I remember in "84 going around my neighborhood in Detroit ask my friends who they where going to vote for. Everyone who was going to vote said Reagan. Reagan made people feel good about the country unlike the pathetic Obama who tears us down. These were younger people, people who just turned voting age people of all races.....

Real income for a median African-American family had dropped 11 percent from 1977-82; from 1982-89, coming out of the recession, it rose by 17 percent. In the 1980s, there was a 40 percent jump in the number of black households earning $50,000 or more. Black unemployment under Reagan in the 1980s actually fell faster than white unemployment. The number of black-owned businesses increased by almost 40 percent, while the number of blacks who enrolled in college increased by almost 30 percent (white college enrollment increased by only 6 percent).

There were likewise impressive numbers for Hispanics, who saw similar to higher increases in family income, employment, and college enrollment. The number of Hispanic-owned businesses in the 1980s grew by an astounding 81 percent, and the number of Hispanics enrolled in college jumped 45 percent.

Liberals often decry the income gap between men and women. Well, under Reagan, women went from earning 60 cents for every dollar a man earned to 71 cents, and their employment and median earnings outpaced their male counterparts. Women enrolled in college in record numbers.

Of course, these are the constituencies that twice elected Barack Obama, thereby giving the green light to policies that are the antithesis of what Ronald Reagan pursued to their advantage.

For that matter, the youth vote also twice elected Barack Obama. And here, too, the data is quite eye-opening.

The peak period of youth unemployment for 16-24 year olds under Reagan was 1982, when it was 17.3%. Reagan reduced it to 10.9% by 1988. Under Obama, the peak for that same group was 19.1%. By 2013, the number was 16.3%.

The unemployment data for 16-19 year olds is even more pronounced. Under Reagan, it fell from 24% in 1982 to 14.8% in 1988. Under Obama, it declined from a high of 25.9% in 2010 to only 22.9% in 2013. The numbers for black Americans aged 16-19 are even stronger in Reagan’s favor. They fell from 49.4% in 1982 to 31.9% in 1988—a vast improvement. Under Obama, they declined from 43.0% in 2010 to only 38.8% in 2013.

Economist Stephen Moore has examined the change in household income for the four primary demographic groups that carried the electoral day for Obama in 2008 and 2012: African-Americans, Hispanics, single women, and young voters. These groups, shows Moore, have experienced the worst declines in household incomes from 2009-13.

Even then, those numbers don’t convey the current catastrophe. Many of today’s unemployed have simply become wards of the welfare state. There are an astounding 48 million Americans on food stamps under Barack Obama, far higher than under Reagan (and under George W. Bush). Reagan had reduced the number of Americans on food stamps to 18 million. The number of Americans on food stamps under Obama has jumped by 43% since his first year as president.

10 years after Reagan s death How does Obama s record compare to Reagan s Fox News

 

[Jroc]

What should he have done differently?

Told his homeys to pull up their fuckin' pants and get a job!!

Too late for that now; he will go down as the worst Pres in history.

Obama isn't anyone's "homey" He couldn't get by in the hood if his life depended on it. he's an elitist liberal

 

[JQPublic1]

Tens of trillions? Yawwnnn! Where are your links? Yawwnnn! I'd also like to see your references for the comparative cost of Obamacare vs your health scenario...got any charts or data to back that assertion up?

Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.

Yet today, 15 percent of Americans still live in poverty. That’s scarcely better than the 19 percent living in poverty at the time of Johnson’s speech. Nearly 22 percent of children live in poverty today. In 1964, it was 23 percent.

How could we have spent so much and achieved so little?

It’s not just a question of the inefficiency of government bureaucracies, although the multiplicity of programs and overlapping jurisdiction surely means that there is a lack of accountability within the system. Rather, the entire concept behind how we fight poverty is wrong.

The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable — giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, etc. — rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty. As a result, we have been successful in reducing the worst privations of poverty. Few Americans live with out the basic necessities of life, yet neither do they rise out of poverty. Moreover, their children are also likely to be poor.

Our goal should not be a society where people struggle along in poverty, dependent on government for just enough to survive, but rather a society where as few people as possible live in poverty, and where every American can reach his or her full potential.

War on Poverty at 50 -- Despite Trillions Spent Poverty Won Cato Institute

The heart of the War on Poverty report is its observation that most federal poverty-alleviation programs are essentially useless or incapable of having their impact measured in the real world.

The study observes that in 1965, the poverty rate was 17.3 percent. In 2012, it was 15 percent. This means taxpayers blew a staggering $20.7 trillion over the last half century in order to achieve a paltry 2.3 percentage point decrease in poverty.

The War on Poverty has barely made a dent in actual poverty
Broken down into less mind-blowing, easier-to-grasp figures, between 1965 and 2012 the average family of four spent roughly $146,000 per percentage-point drop in poverty, or $335,000 per family for the whole 2.3 percentage-point reduction.

Only the most blinkered or jaded among us in the body politic believe that sucking $9 trillion out of the private, productive economy for each single percentage-point reduction in the poverty rate constitutes an acceptable return on investment.

Which brings us to the modern “progressive” Left.

Those on the Left consider the gentle statistical dip in poverty over five decades to be social progress achieved by way of holy coercive redistribution. Mere results have always been less important to the Left than intentions.

The War on Poverty 21 Trillion Later

The War on Poverty 50 Years Later Budget.House.Gov

Well, thanks for the links. So, OK, 50 years have gone by with both GOP and democrat administrations at the helm... Why are you blaming Obama? Why didn't Reagan or the Bushes eliminate it on their watches? Oh, I forgot, you conservatives don't care about poverty except as a tool to use against the Democrats. When your guys are in the WH poverty becomes a non issue.

Now where did all that money go? Who profited from the War on Poverty? I suspect the rich got richer and the poor got poorer because of the War on Poverty. That money just didn't disappear. The poor got stiffed and the people who gained (republicans) get to point the finger at democrats for the spending that benefitted Republicans. Its not as simple s that but that is the way it is broadcast for the general gullible public to digest.

So, while laughing all the way to the banks they own, the republicans don't thank Johnson for initiating their cash cow ( the war on poverty] No! Now they want to win back the presidency and Congress so they can legislate more ways to keep all that dough and not have to share it in any way form or fashion.

Obama is building on it tremendously. Republicans are also big spenders. Conservatives need to take over the Republican party, then win elections or eventually or all the big spenders will collapsed the economy.The problem is, too much demagoguery by the leftist, hate mongers and race baiters like Obama and his leftist buddies. He should be ashamed at what has happened to race relations in this country since he became president. He's not though, hate, jealously and crises help the leftist...

Nice Dodge. Did you miss the part of my narrative pertaining to Republicans profiting
from the War on Poverty? No comment?

Are you ready for the truth? Here it comes, ready or not.


Were you even born when Reagan was president? if you were alive then you were very young and you probably weren't into politics at all. I was alive then and I remember the divide and conquer strategy used by the Republicans, specifically Reagan Republicans. That attempt to divide and conquer went on for 40 years; and, judging by your commentary, that timeworn outdated GOP strategy is still working to divide. The conquering portion though, has been somewhat problematic. Yes you won the majority of Congress seats back by using the same divisive strategy but I think that tactic just might have run it's course. And now the twist is to shift the blame on to Obama as being the great divider. Well, good luck with that.

Were you even born when Reagan was president? if you were alive then you were very young and you probably weren't into politics at all. I was alive then and I remember the divide and conquer strategy used by the Republicans, specifically Reagan Republicans. That attempt to divide and conquer went on for 40 years; and, judging by your commentary, that timeworn outdated GOP strategy is still working to divide. The conquering portion though, has been somewhat problematic. Yes you won the majority of Congress seats back by using the same divisive strategy but I think that tactic just might have run it's course. And now the twist is to shift the blame on to Obama as being the great divider. Well, good luck with that.

almost forty years Republicans have pursued a divide-and-conquer strategy intended to convince working-class whites that the poor were their enemies. The Republicans told the working class that its hard-earned tax dollars were being siphoned off to pay for “welfare queens” (as Ronald Reagan decorously dubbed a black single woman on welfare) and other nefarious loafers
.

The poor were “them” — lazy, dependent on government handouts and overwhelmingly black — in sharp contrast to “us,” who were working ever harder, proudly independent (even sending wives and mothers to work, in order to prop up family incomes dragged down by shrinking male paychecks) and white. [ /quote ]





1.

Blacks did far better under Reagan genius, and no I'm not too young to remember. I remember in "84 going around my neighborhood in Detroit ask my friends who they where going to vote for. Everyone who was going to vote said Reagan. Reagan made people feel good about the country unlike the pathetic Obama who tears us down. These were younger people, people who just turned voting age people of all races.....

Real income for a median African-American family had dropped 11 percent from 1977-82; from 1982-89, coming out of the recession, it rose by 17 percent. In the 1980s, there was a 40 percent jump in the number of black households earning $50,000 or more. Black unemployment under Reagan in the 1980s actually fell faster than white unemployment. The number of black-owned businesses increased by almost 40 percent, while the number of blacks who enrolled in college increased by almost 30 percent (white college enrollment increased by only 6 percent).

There were likewise impressive numbers for Hispanics, who saw similar to higher increases in family income, employment, and college enrollment. The number of Hispanic-owned businesses in the 1980s grew by an astounding 81 percent, and the number of Hispanics enrolled in college jumped 45 percent.

Liberals often decry the income gap between men and women. Well, under Reagan, women went from earning 60 cents for every dollar a man earned to 71 cents, and their employment and median earnings outpaced their male counterparts. Women enrolled in college in record numbers.

Of course, these are the constituencies that twice elected Barack Obama, thereby giving the green light to policies that are the antithesis of what Ronald Reagan pursued to their advantage.

For that matter, the youth vote also twice elected Barack Obama. And here, too, the data is quite eye-opening.

The peak period of youth unemployment for 16-24 year olds under Reagan was 1982, when it was 17.3%. Reagan reduced it to 10.9% by 1988. Under Obama, the peak for that same group was 19.1%. By 2013, the number was 16.3%.

The unemployment data for 16-19 year olds is even more pronounced. Under Reagan, it fell from 24% in 1982 to 14.8% in 1988. Under Obama, it declined from a high of 25.9% in 2010 to only 22.9% in 2013. The numbers for black Americans aged 16-19 are even stronger in Reagan’s favor. They fell from 49.4% in 1982 to 31.9% in 1988—a vast improvement. Under Obama, they declined from 43.0% in 2010 to only 38.8% in 2013.

Economist Stephen Moore has examined the change in household income for the four primary demographic groups that carried the electoral day for Obama in 2008 and 2012: African-Americans, Hispanics, single women, and young voters. These groups, shows Moore, have experienced the worst declines in household incomes from 2009-13.

Even then, those numbers don’t convey the current catastrophe. Many of today’s unemployed have simply become wards of the welfare state. There are an astounding 48 million Americans on food stamps under Barack Obama, far higher than under Reagan (and under George W. Bush). Reagan had reduced the number of Americans on food stamps to 18 million. The number of Americans on food stamps under Obama has jumped by 43% since his first year as president.

10 years after Reagan s death How does Obama s record compare to Reagan s Fox News

The US population was much smaller under Reagan than it is today under Obama.

Reagan didn't ascend to the presidency in the wake of a near financial catastrophe
He inherited a Democrat president's surplus and spent it wildly and with reckless abandon.

Reagan gave terrorists weapons. Obama killed terrorists

Reagan cut and ran when 243 marines were killed by Hezbollah giving Bin Laden inspiration to plan and attack the "paper Tiger" image created by Reagan's withdrawal.

Obama came into office and increased troop strength in Afghanistan to 68,000 after out troops were repeatedly attacked


REAGAN:
I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.
-Ronald Reagan 10/28/1984

OBAMA:
No matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these law should be held accountable.
-Barack Obama July 2010

Here is a video of those and even more shocking comparisons. ENJOY!




https://www.youtube.com/]watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ILg1-H6oNuM

 

[Mac1958]

What happened? Obama must have been lying in this speech. He has divided us more so than any president in recent history. it's sad to say that the first mixed race president has been so bad for race relations. He could have actually been the great uniter, instead he chose the opposite. What a waste

Y'know, I remember that when I heard him say that, it made me hopeful.

I kind of believed that he meant it.

Oops.

.

 

[JQPublic1]

Somebody tried to mess up this video link but I don't give up so easy. Here is the Reagan/Obama comparison in a nutshell...

 

[Jroc]

Somebody tried to mess up this video link but I don't give up so easy. Here is the Reagan/Obama comparison in a nutshell...

Once you stop trying to sound intelligent, you're nothing more than a brainwashed fool