Johnson's Great Society

[JakeStarkey]

Soggy and eflatminor are " just angry little folks who cherry-pick very specific tenets of conservatism, radicalize them and then use them as a bludgeon to vent their impotent rage."

 

[eflatminor]

Soggy and eflatminor are " just angry little folks who cherry-pick very specific tenets of conservatism, radicalize them and then use them as a bludgeon to vent their impotent rage."

Wait...you claim someone else is cherry picking the data, Mr 1964-1969 is all I care to look at?!

God, your ignorance is priceless!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You try to suggest that 1959 to 1969 is long term decline, for starters. It's not.

Your arguments have been clearly and absolutely refuted above, but you can't learn that you are wrong on this.

You are engaged in immoral stubborn ignorance and arrogance.

 

[eflatminor]

You try to suggest that 1959 to 1969 is long term decline, for starters. It's not.

Yet, it's an even shorter period of time ('64-'69) that you claim proves the GS to be a success.

Yet another reason why no rational person takes you seriously.

Good luck with that.

Your arguments have been clearly and absolutely refuted above

Because you keep saying so? Hilarious!

You are engaged in immoral stubborn ignorance and arrogance.

Projection.

 

[boedicca]

Johnson's Great Society in practice: a program to keep blacks poor and dependent upon the Democrat Party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1959 to 1969 is not a long term decline, which has nothing to do with the amazing progress from 1965 to 1969. You continue to project your immoral stubbornness and arrogance though you have been repeatedly and firmly refuted above. You have fail on this thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Johnson's Great Society in practice: a program to keep blacks poor and dependent upon the Democrat Party.

boedicca's program on the board: to tell silliness.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

75% of black children born out of wedlock, education system a mess, etc., etc., etc....

To libs.. a grand slam!

It's working!! They have a self sustaining model that generates whole generation of voters for government dependency

 

[eflatminor]

1959 to 1969 is not a long term decline

The decline in poverty was happening prior to 1959, but I suspect no matter how well we did battling poverty before the big entitlement spending, you'd ignore the facts. It's what you do.

which has nothing to do with the amazing progress from 1965 to 1969.

Yet you won't agree to setting entitlement spending to the levels we saw during that period. Now why is that???

You continue to project your immoral stubbornness and arrogance though you have been repeatedly and firmly refuted above. You have fail on this thread.

Stubborn is your screaming that '64 to '69 was "amazing" but the nearly 50 years of deplorable results in poverty are to be discounted...DESPITE the trillions we spent.

Your selective use of facts and insistence on ignoring the long term trend reveals to all your overwhelming bias and inability to face reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

eflatminor plays the same old broken chord.

 

[eflatminor]

eflatminor plays the same old broken chord.

An you still won't address the question. If '64 to '69 was so damn amazing, why not go back to that level of entitlement spending that worked so damn well to lower the poverty rate?

Hmm????

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[eflatminor]

Still avoiding the question...

Coward.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If '64 to '69 was so damn amazing, why not go back to that level of entitlement spending that worked so damn well to lower the poverty rate?

Hmm????

simple, liberals see a ton of moral hazard in bailing out banks but none in bailing out individuals even when their welfare bailouts have obviously destroyed the American family and exacerbated poverty !!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Still avoiding the question...

Coward.

The question has been conclusively answered much to your own loss.

 

[eflatminor]

Still avoiding the question...

Coward.

The question has been conclusively answered much to your own loss.

Then you'll certainly have no trouble stating the answer here, clearly, with no silly name calling or ad hominem attacks.

I'll wait...

 

[boedicca]

If '64 to '69 was so damn amazing, why not go back to that level of entitlement spending that worked so damn well to lower the poverty rate?

Hmm????

simple, liberals see a ton of moral hazard in bailing out banks but none in bailing out individuals even when their welfare bailouts have obviously destroyed the American family and exacerbated poverty !!

It's more than welfare bail outs. An entire "poverty industry" exists to feed off the movement of transfer payments.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If '64 to '69 was so damn amazing, why not go back to that level of entitlement spending that worked so damn well to lower the poverty rate?

Hmm????

simple, liberals see a ton of moral hazard in bailing out banks but none in bailing out individuals even when their welfare bailouts have obviously destroyed the American family and exacerbated poverty !!

It's more than welfare bail outs. An entire "poverty industry" exists to feed off the movement of transfer payments.

simple, liberals see a ton of moral hazard in bailing out banks but none in bailing out individuals even when their welfare bailouts have obviously destroyed the American family and exacerbated poverty !!