The War On Poverty: Lost

[NYcarbineer]

If the money you pay in taxes builds a bridge across a river, which allows land to be developed and homes are built, stores are built, auto dealarships are built and jobs created for construction workers and cops and teachers and gardeners and cable installers and painters, plumbers, prostitutes and clerks, supervisors, managers and CEO's, the economy grows and grows. If you put you money into a CD today, you are lucky to earn more than the rate of inflation, and inflation is low.

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

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


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

That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.

For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?

You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,

which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,

are around today, relative to the population.

And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,

so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

You don't understand what I said. I did not say that nothing they did was worthwhile. If you spend $100 on a lamp, that may very well have been a worthwhile expenditure. That doesn't mean you don't have $100 less in your pocket. I said those projects were not going to revive the economy. Whether they were good or bad things for government to do is irrelevant to my point. That you don't understand that makes it hilarious you ask if I am that stupid.

Liberals so fundamentally don't understand economics. Your economy grows because private companies create value. As evil as it is, that value is called "profit." Makes you shudder, doesn't it Karl? Spending money on infrastructure is necessary, but it doesn't create economic value. FDR did not lessen the depression by that spending. That is what I said. And the data shows it. WWII ended the depression.

Infrastructure doesn't create economic value?

That's the most retarded statement this week around here.

btw, if you buy the myth that WWII ended the depression...

WWII was the biggest US government spending program in history. You have now established that government spending is the way to end a depression, as long it's a sufficiently large amount.

 

[kaz]

Ya know I know you're full of crap. I simply get very boarded with assholes like you and Rabbi and CrusaderFrank - partisan parrots who make statements which are absurd.

I'm pro-choice, think all drugs should be legal, think prostitution, gambling should be legal, oppose all laws against gay sodomy and I oppose the wars and our entire presence in the middle east. Unlike the Republicans, I'm actually a fiscal conservative. I agree with them on actually pretty much nothing.

But I'm a "partisan" Republican. And you call me "full of crap."

Oh, and you don't understand why Republicans are black and white, you're not like that, you're smarter than they are. What a douche. You're a sock puppet for the Democratic party.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the money you pay in taxes builds a bridge across a river, which allows land to be developed and homes are built, stores are built, auto dealarships are built and jobs created for construction workers and cops and teachers and gardeners and cable installers and painters, plumbers, prostitutes and clerks, supervisors, managers and CEO's, the economy grows and grows. If you put you money into a CD today, you are lucky to earn more than the rate of inflation, and inflation is low.

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

You fool.


1. "A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.


2. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”


3. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”


4. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

5. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


6. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

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


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

That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.

For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?

You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,

which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,

are around today, relative to the population.

And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,

so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.

$22 Trillion later...

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


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

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the money you pay in taxes builds a bridge across a river, which allows land to be developed and homes are built, stores are built, auto dealarships are built and jobs created for construction workers and cops and teachers and gardeners and cable installers and painters, plumbers, prostitutes and clerks, supervisors, managers and CEO's, the economy grows and grows. If you put you money into a CD today, you are lucky to earn more than the rate of inflation, and inflation is low.

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

You fool.


1. "A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.


2. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”


3. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”


4. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

5. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


6. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

Nothing you said, or cut and pasted, has anything to do with what I said.

If you want to dispute that Marx was influenced by Engels, then do so.

If you want to dispute that Engels was influenced by the horrors of capitalism in the Industrial Revolution, then do so.

Otherwise, show an ounce of courtesy and don't clutter the board with garbage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

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


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

That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.

For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?

You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,

which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,

are around today, relative to the population.

And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,

so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.

$22 Trillion later...

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


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

It was not lost if the counterfactual is that things would be much worse without it.

I asked, would the poor in American have been better off since 1965 if there had never been Medicaid, which happens to be the cornerstone of the war on poverty programs.

Prove they'd have been better off for the last 50 years. Prove they'd be better off NOW if Medicaid was ended.

Prove all of that and you'll be on your way to proving the war on poverty has been a failure;

on the other hand, if you can't prove any of that, your assertion is a failure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

You fool.


1. "A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.


2. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”


3. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”


4. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

5. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


6. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

Nothing you said, or cut and pasted, has anything to do with what I said.

If you want to dispute that Marx was influenced by Engels, then do so.

If you want to dispute that Engels was influenced by the horrors of capitalism in the Industrial Revolution, then do so.

Otherwise, show an ounce of courtesy and don't clutter the board with garbage.

This is what you said:
"Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism."

I showed that, as usual, you were totally, eternally, abysmally incorrect.


But, neither learning, nor telling the truth are your strong suits....

...carry on.

 

[gipper]

Nothing could be more true than the War of Poverty has been an utter and complete failure...if you evaluate its lack of success in reducing poverty.

It has succeeded in enslaving millions to government welfare, which was its intention.

It is also a big vote buying scheme...and in that sense, it has been a tremendous success.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

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


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

That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.

For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?

You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,

which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,

are around today, relative to the population.

And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,

so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.

$22 Trillion later...

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


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

It was not lost if the counterfactual is that things would be much worse without it.

I asked, would the poor in American have been better off since 1965 if there had never been Medicaid, which happens to be the cornerstone of the war on poverty programs.

Prove they'd have been better off for the last 50 years. Prove they'd be better off NOW if Medicaid was ended.

Prove all of that and you'll be on your way to proving the war on poverty has been a failure;

on the other hand, if you can't prove any of that, your assertion is a failure.

$22 trillion of money stripped from the taxpayers, with no resultant diminution in the original problem...

What sort of imbecile would deny that that is failure and/or corruption of the worst kind....?

Raise your paw.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

You fool.


1. "A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.


2. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”


3. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”


4. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

5. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


6. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

Nothing you said, or cut and pasted, has anything to do with what I said.

If you want to dispute that Marx was influenced by Engels, then do so.

If you want to dispute that Engels was influenced by the horrors of capitalism in the Industrial Revolution, then do so.

Otherwise, show an ounce of courtesy and don't clutter the board with garbage.

This is what you said:
"Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism."

I showed that, as usual, you were totally, eternally, abysmally incorrect.


But, neither learning, nor telling the truth are your strong suits....

...carry on.

My statement is absolutely true. If people were generally happy with capitalism, why would they look for an alternative?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

You fool.


1. "A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.


2. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”


3. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”


4. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

5. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


6. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

Nothing you said, or cut and pasted, has anything to do with what I said.

If you want to dispute that Marx was influenced by Engels, then do so.

If you want to dispute that Engels was influenced by the horrors of capitalism in the Industrial Revolution, then do so.

Otherwise, show an ounce of courtesy and don't clutter the board with garbage.

This is what you said:
"Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism."

I showed that, as usual, you were totally, eternally, abysmally incorrect.


But, neither learning, nor telling the truth are your strong suits....

...carry on.

My statement is absolutely true. If people were generally happy with capitalism, why would they look for an alternative?

Because they are either communists or stupid.

And you are......?

 

[NYcarbineer]

$22 Trillion later...

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


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

That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.

For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?

You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,

which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,

are around today, relative to the population.

And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,

so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.

$22 Trillion later...

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


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

It was not lost if the counterfactual is that things would be much worse without it.

I asked, would the poor in American have been better off since 1965 if there had never been Medicaid, which happens to be the cornerstone of the war on poverty programs.

Prove they'd have been better off for the last 50 years. Prove they'd be better off NOW if Medicaid was ended.

Prove all of that and you'll be on your way to proving the war on poverty has been a failure;

on the other hand, if you can't prove any of that, your assertion is a failure.

$22 trillion of money stripped from the taxpayers, with no resultant diminution in the original problem...

What sort of imbecile would deny that that is failure and/or corruption of the worst kind....?

Raise your paw.

Again are you claiming NO BENEFIT to any Americans from Medicaid?

That is so self-evidently preposterous that I'm even surprised you would be capable of claiming it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

You fool.


1. "A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.


2. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”


3. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”


4. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

5. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


6. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

Nothing you said, or cut and pasted, has anything to do with what I said.

If you want to dispute that Marx was influenced by Engels, then do so.

If you want to dispute that Engels was influenced by the horrors of capitalism in the Industrial Revolution, then do so.

Otherwise, show an ounce of courtesy and don't clutter the board with garbage.

This is what you said:
"Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism."

I showed that, as usual, you were totally, eternally, abysmally incorrect.


But, neither learning, nor telling the truth are your strong suits....

...carry on.

My statement is absolutely true. If people were generally happy with capitalism, why would they look for an alternative?

Because they are either communists or stupid.

And you are......?

Are you even aware that Medicaid is a voluntary program of matching funds to states that CHOOSE to participate?

You, the states rights person...

 

[kaz]

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

You fool.


1. "A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.


2. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”


3. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”


4. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

5. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


6. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

Nothing you said, or cut and pasted, has anything to do with what I said.

If you want to dispute that Marx was influenced by Engels, then do so.

If you want to dispute that Engels was influenced by the horrors of capitalism in the Industrial Revolution, then do so.

Otherwise, show an ounce of courtesy and don't clutter the board with garbage.

This is what you said:
"Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism."

I showed that, as usual, you were totally, eternally, abysmally incorrect.


But, neither learning, nor telling the truth are your strong suits....

...carry on.

OMG he's so dumb. He thinks monarchies and dictatorships are "capitalism."

 

[kaz]

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

You fool.


1. "A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.


2. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”


3. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”


4. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

5. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


6. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

Nothing you said, or cut and pasted, has anything to do with what I said.

If you want to dispute that Marx was influenced by Engels, then do so.

If you want to dispute that Engels was influenced by the horrors of capitalism in the Industrial Revolution, then do so.

Otherwise, show an ounce of courtesy and don't clutter the board with garbage.

This is what you said:
"Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism."

I showed that, as usual, you were totally, eternally, abysmally incorrect.


But, neither learning, nor telling the truth are your strong suits....

...carry on.

My statement is absolutely true. If people were generally happy with capitalism, why would they look for an alternative?

Because they are either communists or stupid.

And you are......?

I think you covered it...

 

[Contumacious]

If the money you pay in taxes builds a bridge across a river, which allows land to be developed and homes are built, stores are built, auto dealarships are built and jobs created for construction workers and cops and teachers and gardeners and cable installers and painters, plumbers, prostitutes and clerks, supervisors, managers and CEO's, the economy grows and grows. If you put you money into a CD today, you are lucky to earn more than the rate of inflation, and inflation is low.

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

Really?

What is the origin of parasitism?

Was it because you and your ilk hated to wake up early and earn a living?

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

$22 Trillion later...

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


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

That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.

For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?

You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,

which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,

are around today, relative to the population.

And as you see, no one including the author of this thread has any such argument to make,

so, no, it is not a fact that the war on poverty was lost.

$22 Trillion later...

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


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

It was not lost if the counterfactual is that things would be much worse without it.

I asked, would the poor in American have been better off since 1965 if there had never been Medicaid, which happens to be the cornerstone of the war on poverty programs.

Prove they'd have been better off for the last 50 years. Prove they'd be better off NOW if Medicaid was ended.

Prove all of that and you'll be on your way to proving the war on poverty has been a failure;

on the other hand, if you can't prove any of that, your assertion is a failure.

$22 trillion of money stripped from the taxpayers, with no resultant diminution in the original problem...

What sort of imbecile would deny that that is failure and/or corruption of the worst kind....?

Raise your paw.

You've never been able to articulate a plan that would have worked better.

How would you have assisted low income Americans who needed healthcare for the last 50 years and got it from Medicaid?

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the money you pay in taxes builds a bridge across a river, which allows land to be developed and homes are built, stores are built, auto dealarships are built and jobs created for construction workers and cops and teachers and gardeners and cable installers and painters, plumbers, prostitutes and clerks, supervisors, managers and CEO's, the economy grows and grows. If you put you money into a CD today, you are lucky to earn more than the rate of inflation, and inflation is low.

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Marx was greatly influenced by Friederich Engels; Engels was greatly influenced by having seen the horrid working conditions in England that were the product of the growing capitalist industrial revolution.

Marxism did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as a reaction to the horrors of capitalism.

You fool.


1. "A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.


2. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”


3. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”


4. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

5. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.


6. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

Appeal to Authority, sans evidence.

Please explain in detail how the rise of unions, and later, how FDR's rural electrification impacted the economic history of the United States. Simply stating Capitalism was the panacea ignores much of the reasons inherent to the economic history of the US after the civil war. Labor and Capital both are required, but labor is both necessary and sufficient while Capital may be necessary it isn't sufficient by itself in terms of expanding the economy.

And do so in your own words, if you can. No more out of context quotes from obscure sources.,