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

[Billy000]

Has he attempted to increase PRIVATE investment in the US by:

1- reducing /abolishing the federal "income"tax..............NO

2- has he abolished the Federal Reserve Board...........NO

3- has he abolished the massive federal regulations?......NO

4- Has he stopped the activities of War Party.................NO

5- Has he decreased federal spending...........................NO

Well then I disagree with you.

.

You're kidding me. You actually think their shouldn't be an income tax?

Absolutely. America had a federal government that functioned perfectly well prior to 1913.


It makes perfect sense. Government borrowed lots of money prior to 1913.

But back then, they paid back the debt.

Obama is the reason why the economy in a recovery. Before his stimulus took effect, the economy was in a free fall. When it took effect, our massive job loss rate turned to growth in a matter of months. This lifted 7 million people out of poverty and 32 million poor Americans less poor.

Thank you, Jay Carney.

I'll concede Obama has spent a lot, but this has mostly been on defense. There has also been no spending growth under Obama. He has spent at the same rate as Bush.

As though spending at the same rate as Bush is anything to bray about.

Clearly you have no understanding how important revenue is. Do you really think today's government expenses can be paid for without income taxes? This is basic economics.

I'm not quoting Carney. I am quoting the CBO, JP Morgan Chase, and Moody.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You're kidding me. You actually think their shouldn't be an income tax?

Absolutely. America had a federal government that functioned perfectly well prior to 1913.


It makes perfect sense. Government borrowed lots of money prior to 1913.

But back then, they paid back the debt.



Thank you, Jay Carney.

I'll concede Obama has spent a lot, but this has mostly been on defense. There has also been no spending growth under Obama. He has spent at the same rate as Bush.

As though spending at the same rate as Bush is anything to bray about.

Clearly you have no understanding how important revenue is. Do you really think today's government expenses can be paid for without income taxes? This is basic economics.

Clearly, you have no understanding how a limited federal government is supposed to be limited, in a small "r" republic.

As was already pointed out, the feds operated and borrowed money just fine prior to 1913.

I'm not quoting Carney. I am quoting the CBO, JP Morgan Chase, and Moody.

So, what the dastardly 1% says carries oodles of credibility, as long as it mirrors your politics.

 

[Billy000]

Absolutely. America had a federal government that functioned perfectly well prior to 1913.


It makes perfect sense. Government borrowed lots of money prior to 1913.

But back then, they paid back the debt.



Thank you, Jay Carney.


As though spending at the same rate as Bush is anything to bray about.

Clearly you have no understanding how important revenue is. Do you really think today's government expenses can be paid for without income taxes? This is basic economics.

Clearly, you have no understanding how a limited federal government is supposed to be limited, in a small "r" republic.

As was already pointed out, the feds operated and borrowed money just fine prior to 1913.

I'm not quoting Carney. I am quoting the CBO, JP Morgan Chase, and Moody.

So, what the dastardly 1% says carries oodles of credibility, as long as it mirrors your politics.

No, you really don't get it.

Unless you are citing a bullshit source like Fox News, you will find many non partisan sources saying the same thing.

 

[Bfgrn]

Unlike yourself, I am not a prisoner of my emotional states. And fear has never so much as whined at me, let alone griped.

That silliness aside, the existence of more reasons than wages is all I need.

The odds that wages would be the overriding consideration, given that there are no fewer than nine other reasons that companies offshore, are statistically negligible.

Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

Try to answer a question...build up the the courage, you can do it.

What do you believe the number one reason companies outsource?

There are numerous reasons, you said so yourself. Whichever is #1 is not germane to the fact.

What is irrevocably true is that wages alone are not the singular factor that motivates companies to offshore.

When you start with one of the highest overall corporate tax rates in the world, greedy state houses like that in California piling on that burden, rampant regulatory meddling, the costs associated with compliance to endless bureaucratic red tape, a grossly over-litigious society, parasitic insurance rackets like workman's comp and so on, wages can easily be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Given all that, a very apropos question would be as to why you love the politician, bureaucrat and ambulance-chasing lawyers, who produce absolutely nothing for the working class to build and sell, more than the American worker?

Whichever is #1 IS germane to the companies that outsource.

Labor Cost in U.S. Vs. Outsourcing

Outsourcing occurs when firms use subcontractors to carry out specific tasks rather than hiring internal employees to do the work. In recent years, companies have outsourced these tasks to subcontractors based in developing nations, primarily due to lower labor costs, in a process known as "off-shoring."

Benefits of Outsourcing

The primary benefit that companies gain when they outsource is a reduction in labor costs. When companies hire internal employees, they must include a competitive compensation and benefits package to recruit and keep workers. When companies outsource their labor, they pay a much lower rate and often do not include benefits such as health insurance and vacation pay.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your reply. And thank you for firmly cementing your inclusion in this group.

And thank you for proving my point:

The real irony is you like to use words like Marxist to attack liberals. The truth is communism is conservative, not liberal. And if you folks on the right had the power, you would turn America into a carbon copy of communist Russia: a nuclear time-bomb and an environmental toxic dump.

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809)

 

[Contumacious]

It is not Obama's fault more people are on food stamps.

Has he attempted to increase PRIVATE investment in the US by:

1- reducing /abolishing the federal "income"tax..............NO

2- has he abolished the Federal Reserve Board...........NO

3- has he abolished the massive federal regulations?......NO

4- Has he stopped the activities of War Party.................NO

5- Has he decreased federal spending...........................NO

Well then I disagree with you.

.

You're kidding me. You actually think their shouldn't be an income tax? It really doesn't make any sense for Rightwingers to despise both the income tax and government borrowing. If you can't see how those concepts conflict, God help you.

FEDERAL TAXES COLLECTED IN 2013

$2,472,542,000,000.00

That is MORE than enough to pay for those programs CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED>

.