LBJ's "War on Poverty" has been a dismal failure

[Contumacious]

LBJ's "War on Poverty" has been a dismal failure


Today, the poverty rate is only slightly below where it was in 1964, and it came with a $20 trillion price tag. What’s more, a record 47 million Americans are now receiving food stamps, which is about 13 million more than when the President Obama took office.

Actually, the war on poverty hasn’t failed. It has done exactly what it was intended to do: enrich and empower the state and its interest groups. One of the problems of being a think-tank is that you must accept the state’s bona fides, or be fired. Only radical criticism, however, criticism that goes to the root, in other words, has a chance of delegitimizing these evil activities.

”

 

[JakeStarkey]

conclusion of a recent Beltway libertarian report

Well, of course, it was.

 

[Katzndogz]

Of course it's a failure. It was always going to be a failure. The poor today, compared to the poor of the day when LBJ declared a war on poverty is far better off, but they are still poor! Poverty is relative. The poor can only be poor when compared to someone better off. The poor in America are wildly wealthy, beyond the dreams of someone in a third world country with no running water.

 

[blastoff]

Oh, c'mon, it's only a dismal failure because we haven't spent enough money on the problem.

It's much like our educational system in that respect.

 

[Mustang]

LBJ's "War on Poverty" has been a dismal failure


Today, the poverty rate is only slightly below where it was in 1964, and it came with a $20 trillion price tag. What’s more, a record 47 million Americans are now receiving food stamps, which is about 13 million more than when the President Obama took office.

Actually, the war on poverty hasn’t failed. It has done exactly what it was intended to do: enrich and empower the state and its interest groups. One of the problems of being a think-tank is that you must accept the state’s bona fides, or be fired. Only radical criticism, however, criticism that goes to the root, in other words, has a chance of delegitimizing these evil activities.

”

Funny.

Take a look at some of the pictures from those days with all the shoeless kids living in ramshackle homes.

The war on poverty made great strides in reducing abject poverty. Unfortunately, paying for the Vietnam War competed with the war on poverty.

Now, the reason why poverty is back up is because the conservatives policies of supply side economics and deregulation have failed miserably...unless the goal all along was a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy in this country. In that case, it's been a rousing success.

 

[Contumacious]

conclusion of a recent Beltway libertarian report

Well, of course, it was.

Comrade Starkiev, are you still "poor" (wink, wink)

Can't buy Vodka with the food stamps?

How much of the 20 TTTTTTTrillion have you gotten already?

.

 

[Contumacious]

Of course it's a failure. It was always going to be a failure. The poor today, compared to the poor of the day when LBJ declared a war on poverty is far better off, but they are still poor! Poverty is relative. The poor can only be poor when compared to someone better off. The poor in America are wildly wealthy, beyond the dreams of someone in a third world country with no running water.

After 20 TTTTTTTTTTTTrillion they are still poor? Hummmmmmmmm

So the purpose of the plan was to kill motivation, the work ethic and create a populace addicted to welfare and dependent upon welfare state politicians.

.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

There are practically no poor people in america. Thanks to democrats nearly every deadbeat has TV and a car and AC. All paid for by working white people.

 

[Contumacious]

Oh, c'mon, it's only a dismal failure because we haven't spent enough money on the problem.

It's much like our educational system in that respect.

I see, so another 40 TTTTrillion should do it?

.

 

[Vox]

there was never any "war on poverty". There was a war on the minds of certain population to vote dimocrap for generations.

that demagoguery war was won.

Poverty did not matter to LBJ at all and neither does it to any of his successors.

 

[Contumacious]

LBJ's "War on Poverty" has been a dismal failure


Today, the poverty rate is only slightly below where it was in 1964, and it came with a $20 trillion price tag. What’s more, a record 47 million Americans are now receiving food stamps, which is about 13 million more than when the President Obama took office.

Actually, the war on poverty hasn’t failed. It has done exactly what it was intended to do: enrich and empower the state and its interest groups. One of the problems of being a think-tank is that you must accept the state’s bona fides, or be fired. Only radical criticism, however, criticism that goes to the root, in other words, has a chance of delegitimizing these evil activities.

”

Funny.

Take a look at some of the pictures from those days with all the shoeless kids living in ramshackle homes.

The war on poverty made great strides in reducing abject poverty. Unfortunately, paying for the Vietnam War competed with the war on poverty.

Now, the reason why poverty is back up is because the conservatives policies of supply side economics and deregulation have failed miserably...unless the goal all along was a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy in this country. In that case, it's been a rousing success.

Interesting .

Those who are motivated , subscribed to the work ethic, did not waste their time in school, are doing very well.

The parasites on the other hands always come up with a gazillion excuses.

.

 

[ClosedCaption]

LBJ declared the war and Nixon, Reagan Bush 1 and 2 were terrible generals in it

 

[Redfish]

LBJ's war on north viet nam was also a massive failure. 58,000 dead americans and billions of dollars for absolutely nothing.

LBJ should be impeached postumously. He was second only to obama in being a terrible president

 

[Claudette]

Its an abject failure that has cost the taxpayers billions.

 

[Truthmatters]

they have to pretend history doesn't exist.


they cant live in the real world.

it destroys their historically failed ideas

 

[Truthmatters]

Go get some numbers that prove your party backed the war on poverty and fully funded it?


now run along and search


what you pretend exists dosent

 

[Contumacious]

there was never any "war on poverty". There was a war on the minds of certain population to vote dimocrap for generations.

that demagoguery war was won.

Poverty did not matter to LBJ at all and neither does it to any of his successors.

Exactly.

Their mission was create a class which would become addicted to freebies and would vote for welfare state politicians in order to show their appreciation.

.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

There can be no legitimate argument that the War on Poverty - INCREASED poverty.
No argument.
The social programs of the 60's-70's destroyed three generations of the black race...and working on the fourth.
The ONLY legitimate tool to combat poverty is job opportunities and a LIMIT on social safety nets when folks find themselves between jobs.
Anything and everything else is a waste of taxpayer dollars and NOT relief - but enabling laziness.
The only exception to this is disability. Which is heavily infected with fraud.

 

[Contumacious]

LBJ declared the war and Nixon, Reagan Bush 1 and 2 were terrible generals in it

Did any of those presidents actually eliminate or decrease the welfare benefits?.

 

[ClosedCaption]

there was never any "war on poverty". There was a war on the minds of certain population to vote dimocrap for generations.

that demagoguery war was won.

Poverty did not matter to LBJ at all and neither does it to any of his successors.

Exactly.

Their mission was create a class which would become addicted to freebies and would vote for welfare state politicians in order to show their appreciation.

.

So this is funny because of two things:

One is because you all see these secret motives all the time but never talk facts. Its always "he did *blank* because he wants *blank*" that you can make up on the fly like the response you'll give me from this post. You just agree on the talking points which is fine but just know thats what it is.

Second thing, You are suggesting that LBJ developed the war on poverty to have voters for decades. As if there is some voodoo LBJ put on the war on poverty that prevents republicans from liking anything in it for Generations to come.

The fact is that Republicans went after it for decades. Reagan Bush etc constantly bash all parts of it when they dont have too. They can provide ideas to put on the table but the only ideas are tear it down FIRST...then we'll work it out. (Like ACA) LBJ couldnt have put such a hex on the GOP as to make their message fail for decades could he?