Wedded To Failure

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,860
60,193
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
....should be the motto of every Democrat voter.

1. Plain ol' failure, lack of success, would be bad enough.....but throwing $22 trillion out the window.....stealing the funds that hard working Americans are taxed by the government.....

....that goes way beyond simple failure. It's theft.




2. Since the inception of LBJ's 'War on Poverty,' $22 trillion has been spent to end poverty…yet the poverty rate is worryingly similar to the rate when LBJ began….why are we still following this failed plan?

"Since its inception as a pillar of progressive liberal president Lyndon Johnson’s, how to buy votes from a naive population, Great Society Program, the so-called War on Poverty has grown exponentially in both size and cost. Despite all the growth in programs to combat poverty, and the trillions of dollars spent to end poverty, and development of whole departments of anti-poverty organizations, the Obama Administration reports that there are more people living in poverty than ever before. Just how can this be?"
Poverty, the Never-Ending War


a. If we accept the above, the "Liberal War on Poverty" isn't a failure.....it has been a success in buying the votes of those under its umbrella.
How about Democrats admitting that that was always the plan....and there is no real poverty in America.

I define poverty as no home, no heat, no food.
Doesn't exist



3. If Democrats actually intended to aid black Americans, would they have been doing everything they could to advance illegal immigration????

Obama's US Civil Rights Commission, 2010 Report:
"The United States Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) is pleased to transmit this report, The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers. A panel of experts briefed members of the Commission on April 4, 2008 regarding the evidence for economic loss and job opportunity costs to black workers attributable to illegal immigration. The panelists also described non-economic factors contributing to the depression of black wages and employment rates.

Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men."
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pdf


Here's the nexus of Democrat plans: both 'welfare' and 'illegal immigration' accrue votes for the Democrats.



4. Reality:
"...while millions of unskilled immigrants sneak illegally into America to do jobs that Americans won’t do, Americans won’t do them because the government pays them as much for idleness as an honest day’s labor pays."
Project Freedom




In short, no sentient individual can vote Democrat.

Of course.....most Democrat voters don't know what 'sentient' means.
 
....should be the motto of every Democrat voter.

1. Plain ol' failure, lack of success, would be bad enough.....but throwing $22 trillion out the window.....stealing the funds that hard working Americans are taxed by the government.........that goes way beyond simple failure. It's theft.

2. Since the inception of LBJ's 'War on Poverty,' $22 trillion has been spent to end poverty…yet the poverty rate is worryingly similar to the rate when LBJ began….why are we still following this failed plan?.

You're looking at things all wrong, PC, the war on poverty has been a gleaming success! You are assuming these programs were set up to really combat poverty. What they were set up for, like all government programs, is as a shell to make work for more government employees, who then spend taxpayer money, sit at desks, move papers around and go through the motions of doing work when in fact little work is really done, because there's no accountability, no deadlines or payroll to meet, just taxpayer money to spend.
So, that is 22 trillion spent on making work for a bunch of faux agencies and shill workers who sit around and play the game. So, in answer to your question, we are still following the plan because it hasn't failed---- the only point of it ever was to SPEND MONEY and create the illusion of a government in motion.
 
....should be the motto of every Democrat voter.

1. Plain ol' failure, lack of success, would be bad enough.....but throwing $22 trillion out the window.....stealing the funds that hard working Americans are taxed by the government.........that goes way beyond simple failure. It's theft.

2. Since the inception of LBJ's 'War on Poverty,' $22 trillion has been spent to end poverty…yet the poverty rate is worryingly similar to the rate when LBJ began….why are we still following this failed plan?.

You're looking at things all wrong, PC, the war on poverty has been a gleaming success! You are assuming these programs were set up to really combat poverty. What they were set up for, like all government programs, is as a shell to make work for more government employees, who then spend taxpayer money, sit at desks, move papers around and go through the motions of doing work when in fact little work is really done, because there's no accountability, no deadlines or payroll to meet, just taxpayer money to spend.
So, that is 22 trillion spent on making work for a bunch of faux agencies and shill workers who sit around and play the game. So, in answer to your question, we are still following the plan because it hasn't failed---- the only point of it ever was to SPEND MONEY and create the illusion of a government in motion.



I believe I said that in the OP......here:

a. If we accept the above, the "Liberal War on Poverty" isn't a failure.....it has been a success in buying the votes of those under its umbrella.
How about Democrats admitting that that was always the plan....and there is no real poverty in America.

I define poverty as no home, no heat, no food.
Doesn't exist
 
5. If the purchase of votes for the Democrat Party is the real 'accomplishment' of the 'welfare system,'......so is this:

From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

  1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Such should be the epitaph of Liberalism.
  2. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.
    1. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
    2. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

      These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.
    3. On Dec. 7, 2012, liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof offered an unexpected concession: “This is painful for a liberal to admit, but … America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.”
 
I believe I said that in the OP......here:

a. If we accept the above, the "Liberal War on Poverty" isn't a failure.....it has been a success in buying the votes of those under its umbrella.
How about Democrats admitting that that was always the plan....and there is no real poverty in America.

I define poverty as no home, no heat, no food.
Doesn't exist

Sort of a parallel, but rather than just buy votes, they are out to spend allocated money. A corollary to that are the votes which usually follow. As to poverty, it exists, I've seen it, but who gets to really define where it begins and ends? Poverty is a relative thing.
 



This is the central thesis of the post....

2. Since the inception of LBJ's 'War on Poverty,' $22 trillion has been spent to end poverty…yet the poverty rate is worryingly similar to the rate when LBJ began….why are we still following this failed plan?

"Since its inception as a pillar of progressive liberal president Lyndon Johnson’s, how to buy votes from a naive population, Great Society Program, the so-called War on Poverty has grown exponentially in both size and cost. Despite all the growth in programs to combat poverty, and the trillions of dollars spent to end poverty, and development of whole departments of anti-poverty organizations, the Obama Administration reports that theYore are more people living in poverty than ever before. Just how can this be?"
Poverty, the Never-Ending War




Your post, of course, has nothing to do with it.


We can conclude, either

a. you are one of those reliable Democrat voters, lacking the ability to comprehend.

or

b. a need to change the subject due to embarrassment over being a reliable Democrat voter.



And that is reality.
 
I believe I said that in the OP......here:

a. If we accept the above, the "Liberal War on Poverty" isn't a failure.....it has been a success in buying the votes of those under its umbrella.
How about Democrats admitting that that was always the plan....and there is no real poverty in America.

I define poverty as no home, no heat, no food.
Doesn't exist

Sort of a parallel, but rather than just buy votes, they are out to spend allocated money. A corollary to that are the votes which usually follow. As to poverty, it exists, I've seen it, but who gets to really define where it begins and ends? Poverty is a relative thing.


I get to define it.

It's no home, no heat, no food.

That is Dickensian poverty, the illusion that Democrats try to substitute for their voters who have to suffer with merely a 42 inch TV, or only a two room house.


  1. But once on considers that “poverty” can more properly defined by what goods and services one has, then the need for our welfare industry fades away:
    1. Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
    2. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
    3. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
    4. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
    5. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
    6. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
    7. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
    8. Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
    9. As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America




There is no real poverty in America.
 
6. "President Trump promised to reform welfare, and in August, he did so, reversing President Obama’s unlawful 2012 waiver of Congress’s 1996 work for welfare recipients.

These mandates, combined with the law’s five-year limit on welfare enrollment, had spectacularly succeeded in increasing independence, halving the welfare caseload within five years, by encouraging women to leave the program for jobs and prompting others to look for work instead of applying for welfare benefits in the first place.

While the rolls shrank, the number of employed single mothers soared, and their wages shot up, too. Meanwhile, contrary to the gloomy warnings of even such wise observers as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (who, by then, evidently had drunk the lack-of-opportunity Kool-Aid), child poverty notably declined, and black child poverty hit a historical low."
Project Freedom




7. Here's a reminder of what the snake, Obama, did to keep low income folks on the government plantation:

"Obama kills welfare reform

...Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition...

“in the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as ‘work.’ These dodges were blocked by the federal work standards. Now that the Obama administration has abolished those standards, ...

...Obama’s strategy of expanding his political base by widening the dependency on government handouts. "
Obama kills welfare reform
 
8. Sooo…..what’s the problem with working, being responsible for making your own future???


The “objection will be a charge of racism—a cry always raised against proposed welfare tightenings. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the Congressional Black Caucus will label it an all-but-genocidal attack on the black family. It’s true that 27.5 percent of black families were receiving cash welfare in 2012, census numbers show—a subset of the two-thirds of American black families that are single-parent households, and of the 81.5 percent of black families receiving some kind of government assistance, if only food stamps and/or Medicaid.


But is this what the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton want for their fellow black Americans? Surely they know as well as anyone the numbers correlating single-parent families with poverty and social pathology. Surely they should want an end to government programs that reinforce a culture hindering black Americans from joining the mainstream, from rising out of poverty and seizing every opportunity that American society and the U.S. economy now offer gladly and open-handedly to all. Surely they want, as moral leaders, to encourage the formation of families that prepare children for the success that American society holds out to them, the chance to realize all the human potential that lies within them.”
Project Freedom


Either one sees blacks as equal to every other group, and, hence, able to compete and succeed.....

....or, one is a Democrat and sees them as pets who must be fed, clothed and maintained, never able make it on their own.


"It was the misfortune of black Americans that they were just on the verge of passing through the immigrant experience when damaging ideas about welfare and the lenient attitude about crime took hold. It could have happened to the Italians, Germans, Jews or Irish, but luckily for them, there were no Liberals around to “help” when they arrived."
Coulter
 
9.“…Trump’s infrastructure vision offers a whole new field of job opportunity to those able to seize it. The president, as an experienced builder, wants to remove regulatory hurdles to such projects, cutting the time and expense of accomplishing them.

He should also consider opening as widely as possible the chance for a job building those public works, by making federal grants conditional on suspending state and local prevailing-wage regulations and union-membership requirements. And then he could condition Washington dollars on the states and municipalities establishing construction-trade apprenticeships, perhaps through the community colleges but certainly not through professional race-hustlers, to equip the unskilled unemployed, including those on General Assistance, with remunerative expertise.





10. The United States is blessed in having created, over many generations and with much travail, an equal-opportunity society. It doesn’t need an equal-opportunity underclass, and should act promptly to stop its spread and to shrink it. The time is not only ripe but positively cries out to end welfare now, before it fuels further damage to our most vulnerable fellow citizens.” Project Freedom
 

Forum List

Back
Top