Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[Listening]

Thomas Sowell, in his amazing and most thought provoking book "Vision of the Annointed" addresses this in the opening section. He had just recounted the pattern of how those who claim the best of intentions generally address societal issues and problems. And then addresses the issue of poverty (among other things) as illustration:

(In Chapter One of Vision of the Annointed. Sowell includes references to his sources for all statistical data. I can't provide page numbers as I am copying this from my Kindle and it doesn't show the page numbers as they appear in the hard copy of the book.)​

Excerpt:


If Sowell is right--and I would bet a very nice steak dinner that he is--this alone should cause us to back up and rethink what we do. Have all those trillions we have poured into poverty programs created more dependency than have actually helped people who would not have otherwise helped themselves? Cannot reasonable and intelligent people look at it from that perspective and come to a rational and supportable decision without demonizing or insulting some political party or group or demographic?

(Note: I was introduced to Sowell's book some time after I started this thread. I wish I had had it when I started the thread. )

Add to that the idea that SS somehow keeps people out of poverty. That is their money for crying out loud. They put into the system and they are taking out (albeit a bit more than they put in).

That's like saying my 401K keeps me out of poverty. The government didn't put that there. I did. So I am the one keeping myself out of poverty.

Royal Airforce Bullshyt.

Yes, social security does provide a means to help some escape poverty. But is it the most efficient and effective way to do that? Does social security produce more unintended negative consequences than it does good? These are questions that visionaries are not afraid to ask. Not afraid to explore. And intellectually honest people would prefer an honest answer rather than one that fits a particular ideology whether the answer to such questions are 'yes' or 'no'.

What was said was that if 20 million didn't have it, they'd be in poverty. That isn't the same as saying it keeps them out of poverty...because if they lost it, they might find another way to replace it.

The bigger implication is that somehow the government is doing them a favor. Which it isn't. It's really the other way around. People got lax thinking this would be there (even they were told not to do that). Additionally, the actuarial basis for the whole system was screwed when pols started adding new groups to the list of eligibles.

Overall, it has been a huge failure in terms of the investment we've made in it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Add to that the idea that SS somehow keeps people out of poverty. That is their money for crying out loud. They put into the system and they are taking out (albeit a bit more than they put in).

That's like saying my 401K keeps me out of poverty. The government didn't put that there. I did. So I am the one keeping myself out of poverty.

Royal Airforce Bullshyt.

Yes, social security does provide a means to help some escape poverty. But is it the most efficient and effective way to do that? Does social security produce more unintended negative consequences than it does good? These are questions that visionaries are not afraid to ask. Not afraid to explore. And intellectually honest people would prefer an honest answer rather than one that fits a particular ideology whether the answer to such questions are 'yes' or 'no'.

What was said was that if 20 million didn't have it, they'd be in poverty. That isn't the same as saying it keeps them out of poverty...because if they lost it, they might find another way to replace it.

The bigger implication is that somehow the government is doing them a favor. Which it isn't. It's really the other way around. People got lax thinking this would be there (even they were told not to do that). Additionally, the actuarial basis for the whole system was screwed when pols started adding new groups to the list of eligibles.

Overall, it has been a huge failure in terms of the investment we've made in it.

I mostly share your view about that, but also recognize that others are equally passionate and hold strong convictions that Social Security has been a huge success. Wouldn't it be wonderful though to have a national discussion about it that didn't include partisan and ideological insults and talking points in lieu of evaluating whether the program is in fact more beneficial than not and/or whether there is a better way to address the needs of the aged?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think Bill Clintons action are an example of what you are looking for. He reformed welfare. That was my understanding. What happened ?

I think there were some good thing and some bad things that happened.

So, I would guess you'd need to consider how to keep the good and avoid the "bad" as you work to reform other programs.

The generalizations that you whine about won't take place in total.

Look at Obamacare....the unions wanted it, we didn't. Now it looks like we are going to get and they are not.

How'd that happen ?

Why are you complaining that I'm making generalizations? Why aren't you attacking the OP for generalization?

I said the generalizations you were whining about (like those in the OP). I didn't say you were making them.

LHTR

Ok, so reduce Medicaid, food stamps, etc., etc., 10% percent a year for 10 years. Whose better off at the end of those ten years?

The poor?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't make millions upon millions of people dependent on government hand outs and then abruptly take them away. That would not be compassionate. But we can start slowly and carefully, to give people time to adjust, move such programs to the states and local communities and private charities where they belonged in the first place and where they will be administered much more economically, efficiently, and without the bulk of the corruption that naturally finds its way into all one-size-fits-all federal programs.

A moral society does take care of the truly helpless. But the fallacy comes in the assumption that the federal government is the entity that should do that.

So, a single woman with 2 children and a low paying job is eligible for Medicaid. You take her Medicaid away.

Where does she find the resources to now pay for her and her children's healthcare?

How does her life get better now that you have had your way, i.e., you have made no longer dependent on the government for healthcare?

Best case: You train her to get a better paying job. That assumes Obama can make a job for her...but I digress. She gets benefits.

Next Best: Find the dad and get his ass involved (like in make him pay for some her health care).

O.K.: She gets help from the state or some charity to take care of her health care needs.

Poor: Her children don't get preventative care

Really bad: She despairs

Worst: The state has to take her kids because she can't/won't care for them anymore.

Which do you want ?

But according to the OP, the Medicaid does more harm than good. So when, where, and how does the good begin to exceed the harm in her life, and her children's life,

once the Medicaid is gone?

 

[Listening]

Why are you complaining that I'm making generalizations? Why aren't you attacking the OP for generalization?

I said the generalizations you were whining about (like those in the OP). I didn't say you were making them.

LHTR

Ok, so reduce Medicaid, food stamps, etc., etc., 10% percent a year for 10 years. Whose better off at the end of those ten years?

The poor?

Who knows.

I think what FoxFyre is saying is that those programs would be replaced by other means for helping the poor.

Next, the poor today are not the poor ten years from now...people come and go from poverty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Poverty programs don't create dependency. Poverty programs fill a gap between the population's need for good paying jobs and and the number of good paying jobs that are actually being generated by the economy.

Income is what a person depends on.

 

[dannyboys]

OK. I point out the elephant in the room if none of you are man enough.
The reason there is a 'poverty class' and there will always be one is a certain segment of the population have lower IQs . Period. Simple. These low IQ folk have historically needed to be looked after and the problem remains.
The only difference now is as the world is fast becoming a 'dog-eat-dog' environment and those with higher IQs are increasingly less inclined to reach back to those who are being left behind.
It's called 'Social Darwinism' folks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I said the generalizations you were whining about (like those in the OP). I didn't say you were making them.

LHTR

Ok, so reduce Medicaid, food stamps, etc., etc., 10% percent a year for 10 years. Whose better off at the end of those ten years?

The poor?

Who knows.

I think what FoxFyre is saying is that those programs would be replaced by other means for helping the poor.

Next, the poor today are not the poor ten years from now...people come and go from poverty.

Foxfyre wants the poor's needs to be shifted to charity from the government because he thinks that will lower his taxes. Everything else he says is just rationalization.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK. I point out the elephant in the room if none of you are man enough.
The reason there is a 'poverty class' and there will always be one is a certain segment of the population have lower IQs . Period. Simple. These low IQ folk have historically needed to be looked after and the problem remains.
The only difference now is as the world is fast becoming a 'dog-eat-dog' environment and those with higher IQs are increasingly less inclined to reach back to those who are being left behind.
It's called 'Social Darwinism' folks.

50 years ago in this country you didn't need a high IQ or much more than a high school diploma, if that,

to get a good paying job in industry, among other places, in this country. And good paying job meant a job that could on its own support a family.

Once that 'norm' began to disappear, all of economic problems began to multiply.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok, so reduce Medicaid, food stamps, etc., etc., 10% percent a year for 10 years. Whose better off at the end of those ten years?

The poor?

Who knows.

I think what FoxFyre is saying is that those programs would be replaced by other means for helping the poor.

Next, the poor today are not the poor ten years from now...people come and go from poverty.

Foxfyre wants the poor's needs to be shifted to charity from the government because he thinks that will lower his taxes. Everything else he says is just rationalization.

In all due respect I do not tell you what you want or what you think. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

You would be competent in the discussion if you referred to my expressed statement that I do not see the federal government as the proper or most effective or most efficient entity to address issues of poverty. I did not nor have I ever said there is no role for the state or local governments to address poverty. So you are dishonest with your statement as you expressed it. Would you care to revise and extend?

 

[RightDown]

Thomas Sowell, in his amazing and most thought provoking book "Vision of the Annointed" addresses this in the opening section. He had just recounted the pattern of how those who claim the best of intentions generally address societal issues and problems. And then addresses the issue of poverty (among other things) as illustration:

(In Chapter One of Vision of the Annointed. Sowell includes references to his sources for all statistical data. I can't provide page numbers as I am copying this from my Kindle and it doesn't show the page numbers as they appear in the hard copy of the book.)​

Excerpt:

STAGE 1. THE 'CRISIS': Given that the purpose of the 'war on poverty' was to reduce dependency, the question is: How much dependency was there at the time and was it increasing or decreasing before the new policies were instituted? In short, what was the 'crisis' for which the anointed were proposing a 'solution'?​

As of the time the 'war on poverty' programs began, the number of people who lived below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since 1960, and was only about half of what it had been in 1950. On the more fundamental issue of dependency, the situation was even more clearly improving. The proportion of people whose earnings put them below the povrty level without counting government benefits declined by one third from 1950 to 1965. In short dependency on government transfers as a means of warding off poverty was declining when the 'war on poverty' began.

STAGE 2. THE 'SOLUTION': The Economic Opportunity act was passed in 1964, creating the Office of Economic Opportunity, the 'war on poverty' agency. As an historian of poverty programs put it, "Congress was quick to buy a program that might help welfare wither away." The Council of Economic Advisers declared "conquest of poverty is well within our power."​

STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The percentage of people dependent upon the federal government to keep above the poverty line increased. Although the number of such dependent people had been declining for more than a decade before the 'war on poverty' began, this downwar trend now reversed itself and began rising within a few years after that program got under way.​

Official poverty continued its decline for some time as massive federal outlays lifted many people above the official poverty line, but not out of dependency--the original goal. Eventually, however, even official poverty began to rise so that a larger number of people were in poverty in 1992 than were in poverty in 1964 when the 'war on poverty' began.

If Sowell is right--and I would bet a very nice steak dinner that he is--this alone should cause us to back up and rethink what we do. Have all those trillions we have poured into poverty programs created more dependency than have actually helped people who would not have otherwise helped themselves? Cannot reasonable and intelligent people look at it from that perspective and come to a rational and supportable decision without demonizing or insulting some political party or group or demographic?

(Note: I was introduced to Sowell's book some time after I started this thread. I wish I had had it when I started the thread. )

Add to that the idea that SS somehow keeps people out of poverty. That is their money for crying out loud. They put into the system and they are taking out (albeit a bit more than they put in).

That's like saying my 401K keeps me out of poverty. The government didn't put that there. I did. So I am the one keeping myself out of poverty.

Royal Airforce Bullshyt.

I was hoping you'd put up resistance. I tell you the truth and you attack me. That lying sack of shit that started this thread intentionally tried to mislead you with the graph and you're A'ok with that? Let me elaborate b/c you still don't understand. The graph's bottom bar shows the real effect of anti-poverty programs implemented by the federal government. The poverty rate was halved. The top bar shows the number of impoverished people each year without accounting for population growth.

Tell me is 40 million poor people in a population of 177 million the same as 37 million poor people in a population of 296 million?

Do take your time. But respond.

And Social Security is social insurance. Your payroll tax dollars fund today's benefits and tomorrow's payroll tax payers fund your benefit when you retire.

You must have missed that the first time I wrote.

Now where's my apology?

I'm going to do you one better. I'm going to tell you a truth that will change your life if you let it. The people that own you and me spend a lot of time and money trying to convince you that their goals and problems are the same as yours. They are not.

That's why you have to be lied to constantly. That's why you hate big government, you hate unions, you hate regulations, you hate anything that helps the poor or middle class b/c that narrows the gap in net worth between the plutocrats and everybody else. But you love 'free markets' and anything that stomps on labor. You've internalized the propaganda to the extent that you can't even think in your own self interest. You operate in almost total ignorance.

I don't expect anything in return. I'm here to help

 

[RightDown]

Thomas Sowell, in his amazing and most thought provoking book "Vision of the Annointed" addresses this in the opening section. He had just recounted the pattern of how those who claim the best of intentions generally address societal issues and problems. And then addresses the issue of poverty (among other things) as illustration:

(In Chapter One of Vision of the Annointed. Sowell includes references to his sources for all statistical data. I can't provide page numbers as I am copying this from my Kindle and it doesn't show the page numbers as they appear in the hard copy of the book.)​

Excerpt:


If Sowell is right--and I would bet a very nice steak dinner that he is--this alone should cause us to back up and rethink what we do. Have all those trillions we have poured into poverty programs created more dependency than have actually helped people who would not have otherwise helped themselves? Cannot reasonable and intelligent people look at it from that perspective and come to a rational and supportable decision without demonizing or insulting some political party or group or demographic?

(Note: I was introduced to Sowell's book some time after I started this thread. I wish I had had it when I started the thread. )

Add to that the idea that SS somehow keeps people out of poverty. That is their money for crying out loud. They put into the system and they are taking out (albeit a bit more than they put in).

That's like saying my 401K keeps me out of poverty. The government didn't put that there. I did. So I am the one keeping myself out of poverty.

Royal Airforce Bullshyt.

Yes, social security does provide a means to help some escape poverty. But is it the most efficient and effective way to do that? Does social security produce more unintended negative consequences than it does good? These are questions that visionaries are not afraid to ask. Not afraid to explore. And intellectually honest people would prefer an honest answer rather than one that fits a particular ideology whether the answer to such questions are 'yes' or 'no'.

Look fella, you're a dishonest sleaze bag. Your primitive attempt to fool people with your rigged bar graph failed. Look! 40 million poor in 1959 and 37 million poor in 2005. The war on poverty failed! You disgust me.

Population in 1959- 177 million, in 2005 296 million.
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?dsrcid=225439

You're a conman.

You have much in common with Uncle Tom Sowell. You're both lying sacks of shit and sell outs.

He's an uncle tom and you're a class traitor.

 

[Foxfyre]

OK. I point out the elephant in the room if none of you are man enough.
The reason there is a 'poverty class' and there will always be one is a certain segment of the population have lower IQs . Period. Simple. These low IQ folk have historically needed to be looked after and the problem remains.
The only difference now is as the world is fast becoming a 'dog-eat-dog' environment and those with higher IQs are increasingly less inclined to reach back to those who are being left behind.
It's called 'Social Darwinism' folks.

While I do agree that the intelligent, if they utilize it, do have a leg up in achieving the so-called 'American dream', I can't go along with the Social Darwinism theory. While I don't claim to be any Einstein, I generally score well enough on IQ tests, and I am involved hands on with the poor. I know hundreds of others, mostly probably brighter than I am, who are also working hands on with the poor. And our work is not targeted at making the able bodied more comfortable in their poverty but is rather focused on helping them use their own intelligence and abilities and choose to escape it.

One universal truth, however, is that the more government addresses a problem, the less the general population is motivated to do so. The general natural human response is to figure one little donation is insignificant when added to the millions of dollars of tax payer money the government dispenses. Before government was dispensing charity on a large scale, the community always rallied to find the burned out family replacement shelter and provide them with food, clothing, and enough furniture to start over. Again and again we saw similar outpouring of good will to those in need. Did some folks fall between the cracks? Yes they did. And they still do.

Evenso, I do believe a moral society does take care of the truly helpless and there is a role there for the community and the state. I do not believe, however, that the federal government was ever designed for nor is it the best dispenser of charity of any kind.

 

[Listening]

Poverty programs don't create dependency. Poverty programs fill a gap between the population's need for good paying jobs and and the number of good paying jobs that are actually being generated by the economy.

Income is what a person depends on.

Such statements are silly.

It does both and it does a whole lot of other things too.

That is what is missing in all this. This isn't an Y=f(x) type of situation.

We can hardly define Y (we can't) and it's really f(x1, x2, x3.......x100,000).

These things are very complex.

 

[Listening]

Thomas Sowell, in his amazing and most thought provoking book "Vision of the Annointed" addresses this in the opening section. He had just recounted the pattern of how those who claim the best of intentions generally address societal issues and problems. And then addresses the issue of poverty (among other things) as illustration:

(In Chapter One of Vision of the Annointed. Sowell includes references to his sources for all statistical data. I can't provide page numbers as I am copying this from my Kindle and it doesn't show the page numbers as they appear in the hard copy of the book.)​

Excerpt:


If Sowell is right--and I would bet a very nice steak dinner that he is--this alone should cause us to back up and rethink what we do. Have all those trillions we have poured into poverty programs created more dependency than have actually helped people who would not have otherwise helped themselves? Cannot reasonable and intelligent people look at it from that perspective and come to a rational and supportable decision without demonizing or insulting some political party or group or demographic?

(Note: I was introduced to Sowell's book some time after I started this thread. I wish I had had it when I started the thread. )

Add to that the idea that SS somehow keeps people out of poverty. That is their money for crying out loud. They put into the system and they are taking out (albeit a bit more than they put in).

That's like saying my 401K keeps me out of poverty. The government didn't put that there. I did. So I am the one keeping myself out of poverty.

Royal Airforce Bullshyt.

I was hoping you'd put up resistance. I tell you the truth and you attack me. That lying sack of shit that started this thread intentionally tried to mislead you with the graph and you're A'ok with that? Let me elaborate b/c you still don't understand. The graph's bottom bar shows the real effect of anti-poverty programs implemented by the federal government. The poverty rate was halved. The top bar shows the number of impoverished people each year without accounting for population growth.

Tell me is 40 million poor people in a population of 177 million the same as 37 million poor people in a population of 296 million?

Do take your time. But respond.

And Social Security is social insurance. Your payroll tax dollars fund today's benefits and tomorrow's payroll tax payers fund your benefit when you retire.

You must have missed that the first time I wrote.

Now where's my apology?

I'm going to do you one better. I'm going to tell you a truth that will change your life if you let it. The people that own you and me spend a lot of time and money trying to convince you that their goals and problems are the same as yours. They are not.

That's why you have to be lied to constantly. That's why you hate big government, you hate unions, you hate regulations, you hate anything that helps the poor or middle class b/c that narrows the gap in net worth between the plutocrats and everybody else. But you love 'free markets' and anything that stomps on labor. You've internalized the propaganda to the extent that you can't even think in your own self interest. You operate in almost total ignorance.

I don't expect anything in return. I'm here to help

I was looking for some justification for your claims, asswipe.

Now that you've started to produce them (some of which are very predictable), we can discuss how screwed up you are.

First, you'll see (and was already pointed out) that the war on poverty didn't do much except continue what was happening. The U.S. was hitting it's stride at about the time LBJ showed up. In 1966 he increased SS benefits just to keep the trust fund down. People loved it. By 1972, they started to figure out the credit card was overheated.

Point being that your so called war on poverty has to be directly attributable to what you claim it did. I'll address this more later.

Add to that, the line does not keep going. What's that tell you ? I'll be interested to hear your response.

As for the Ponzi Scheme we call Social Security...give me a break. If you want to live your life thinking that someone is doing something for you....go ahead. Social Security only keeps people out of poverty because it duped them into being on the brink to begin with.

 

[Listening]

Add to that the idea that SS somehow keeps people out of poverty. That is their money for crying out loud. They put into the system and they are taking out (albeit a bit more than they put in).

That's like saying my 401K keeps me out of poverty. The government didn't put that there. I did. So I am the one keeping myself out of poverty.

Royal Airforce Bullshyt.

Yes, social security does provide a means to help some escape poverty. But is it the most efficient and effective way to do that? Does social security produce more unintended negative consequences than it does good? These are questions that visionaries are not afraid to ask. Not afraid to explore. And intellectually honest people would prefer an honest answer rather than one that fits a particular ideology whether the answer to such questions are 'yes' or 'no'.

Look fella, you're a dishonest sleaze bag. Your primitive attempt to fool people with your rigged bar graph failed. Look! 40 million poor in 1959 and 37 million poor in 2005. The war on poverty failed! You disgust me.

Population in 1959- 177 million, in 2005 296 million.
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?dsrcid=225439

You're a conman.

You have much in common with Uncle Tom Sowell. You're both lying sacks of shit and sell outs.

He's an uncle tom and you're a class traitor.

Neg repped for the unwarranted attack on a very thoughtful contributor.

You want to fight with Sowell...go ahead. He publishes his stuff. Just calling names is so left wingish.

I'll tell you something that will make your life better...pull your head out of your ass.

 

[RightDown]

Yes, social security does provide a means to help some escape poverty. But is it the most efficient and effective way to do that? Does social security produce more unintended negative consequences than it does good? These are questions that visionaries are not afraid to ask. Not afraid to explore. And intellectually honest people would prefer an honest answer rather than one that fits a particular ideology whether the answer to such questions are 'yes' or 'no'.

Look fella, you're a dishonest sleaze bag. Your primitive attempt to fool people with your rigged bar graph failed. Look! 40 million poor in 1959 and 37 million poor in 2005. The war on poverty failed! You disgust me.

Population in 1959- 177 million, in 2005 296 million.
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?dsrcid=225439

You're a conman.

You have much in common with Uncle Tom Sowell. You're both lying sacks of shit and sell outs.

He's an uncle tom and you're a class traitor.

Neg repped for the unwarranted attack on a very thoughtful contributor.

You want to fight with Sowell...go ahead. He publishes his stuff. Just calling names is so left wingish.

I'll tell you something that will make your life better...pull your head out of your ass.

You're a coward. I've shown that piece of shit foxfyre intentionally passed off a deceptive bar graph to make a point that does not exist in fact. He's trying to prove his anti-gov. argument by flat out lying.

Apparently you liked to be lied to as well. Nothing wrong with being a masochist...that's so right wingish of you...hit me again big daddy. That's the only reason you answer my posts. I slap you around and you like it....you come back for more.

 

[RightDown]

Add to that the idea that SS somehow keeps people out of poverty. That is their money for crying out loud. They put into the system and they are taking out (albeit a bit more than they put in).

That's like saying my 401K keeps me out of poverty. The government didn't put that there. I did. So I am the one keeping myself out of poverty.

Royal Airforce Bullshyt.

I was hoping you'd put up resistance. I tell you the truth and you attack me. That lying sack of shit that started this thread intentionally tried to mislead you with the graph and you're A'ok with that? Let me elaborate b/c you still don't understand. The graph's bottom bar shows the real effect of anti-poverty programs implemented by the federal government. The poverty rate was halved. The top bar shows the number of impoverished people each year without accounting for population growth.

Tell me is 40 million poor people in a population of 177 million the same as 37 million poor people in a population of 296 million?

Do take your time. But respond.

And Social Security is social insurance. Your payroll tax dollars fund today's benefits and tomorrow's payroll tax payers fund your benefit when you retire.

You must have missed that the first time I wrote.

Now where's my apology?

I'm going to do you one better. I'm going to tell you a truth that will change your life if you let it. The people that own you and me spend a lot of time and money trying to convince you that their goals and problems are the same as yours. They are not.

That's why you have to be lied to constantly. That's why you hate big government, you hate unions, you hate regulations, you hate anything that helps the poor or middle class b/c that narrows the gap in net worth between the plutocrats and everybody else. But you love 'free markets' and anything that stomps on labor. You've internalized the propaganda to the extent that you can't even think in your own self interest. You operate in almost total ignorance.

I don't expect anything in return. I'm here to help

I was looking for some justification for your claims, asswipe.

Now that you've started to produce them (some of which are very predictable), we can discuss how screwed up you are.

First, you'll see (and was already pointed out) that the war on poverty didn't do much except continue what was happening. The U.S. was hitting it's stride at about the time LBJ showed up. In 1966 he increased SS benefits just to keep the trust fund down. People loved it. By 1972, they started to figure out the credit card was overheated.

Point being that your so called war on poverty has to be directly attributable to what you claim it did. I'll address this more later.

Add to that, the line does not keep going. What's that tell you ? I'll be interested to hear your response.

As for the Ponzi Scheme we call Social Security...give me a break. If you want to live your life thinking that someone is doing something for you....go ahead. Social Security only keeps people out of poverty because it duped them into being on the brink to begin with.

Didn't do much? The poverty rate cut in half. And you attribute that to what? the US hitting its stride?

hahahah. You just make this shit up as you go along. that's sad.

I'm certainly glad that you show us all later how anti poverty programs caused poverty. Why not just type the answer now? I'll tell you why. You have to run to uncle tom sowell or wikipedia to find out just exactly what you think. See, you don't know what you're talking about. I do.

Big difference.

IF Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, who got defrauded? SS never missed a benefit payment, so tell me who got defrauded?

You're a parrot and a bad one at that. Listening want a cracker?

 

[Foxfyre]

We have had a reasonably civil and civilized discussion up to this point. I will respectfully request that those who do not appreciate that to find another thread to participate in. I will respectfully ask those who do appreciate that to ignore those who don't. That should allow us to keep the discussion productive and interesting to all. Let's especially ignore those who are so pathetically dysfunctional in our reading skills as I am being described in the most uncouth terms for posting a graph I didn't post.

 

[Kosh]

We are loosing the war on poverty, too many people have died from this war.

It is time to cut our losses and move and bring this war to end.

Well that is if you are truly anti-war.