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

[ilia25]

[/B]

What prevents you from learning a marketable skill thereby preventing your income from remaining constant?!?!?!?

.

It's not about me. It's about the rest -- and no, they cannot ALL become CEOs. Not even if every single one of them would graduate from an ivy league business school.

So the only way of earning a living is being a CEO?!?!?!?!

.

You such a moron! -- it's not about simply earning a living. It's about having a job with a pay that keeps up with productivity growth. And modern economy creates very few such jobs. And it would not create any more of them even if everyone earns a PhD.

The market economy creates an ever more unequal income distribution, and education won't change that trend. The only way to fix the outcome would be more income redistribution by the government.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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

It has not been a failure. It was simply too small an effort to offset this:

America has become a much richer country since 70s, but almost all those gains went to the high income earners. The incomes of the poor (working poor) remained constant at best.

A) Wages are not the only way to earn a living.

B) Your chart compares wage income with all compensation for all the dastardly 1%: Apples and oranges.

C) Can't expect too much more than such disingenuous misdirection from the flaming partisan hacks at Mother Jones.

 

[Political Junky]

The Right has been saying the War on Poverty is a failure for about fifty years, when they set about to destroy it.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

The Right has been saying the War on Poverty is a failure for about fifty years, when they set about to destroy it.

If I bothered to try and understand what that means, it's certain that blood would probably shoot out of every orifice in my head.

 

[blackhawk]

There has been a estimated 20 trillion dollars spent on the war on poverty the change in poverty in the United States during that 50 year time frame has been minimal what should it be called?

 

[Kosh]

The Right has been saying the War on Poverty is a failure for about fifty years, when they set about to destroy it.

Far left propaganda!

 

[Kosh]

There has been a estimated 20 trillion dollars spent on the war on poverty the change in poverty in the United States during that 50 year time frame has been minimal what should it be called?

The far left getting their way...

 

[blackhawk]

There has been a estimated 20 trillion dollars spent on the war on poverty the change in poverty in the United States during that 50 year time frame has been minimal what should it be called?

The far left getting their way...

I think Albert Einstein described it better with this quote.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

There has been a estimated 20 trillion dollars spent on the war on poverty the change in poverty in the United States during that 50 year time frame has been minimal what should it be called?

The far left getting their way...

I think Albert Einstein described it better with this quote.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

But how do you know for sure the current situation isn't the result they want?

 

[Kosh]

The far left getting their way...

I think Albert Einstein described it better with this quote.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

But how do you know for sure the current situation isn't the result they want?

In order for the far left elitists to stay in power they need the serfs on order to do so. The only thing they can do is make sure they create enough serfs in order to claim that if they are elected the government will save them from the "evil" rich people.

Yet the rich white far left elite that are pulling the stings are ignored by their loyal programmed followers.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I think Albert Einstein described it better with this quote.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

But how do you know for sure the current situation isn't the result they want?

In order for the far left elitists to stay in power they need the serfs on order to do so. The only thing they can do is make sure they create enough serfs in order to claim that if they are elected the government will save them from the "evil" rich people.

Yet the rich white far left elite that are pulling the stings are ignored by their loyal programmed followers.

So, my question stands, especially in light of the control that the left has over education, media and pop culture.

Something to noodle on.

 

[blackhawk]

The far left getting their way...

I think Albert Einstein described it better with this quote.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

But how do you know for sure the current situation isn't the result they want?

You can never be sure when dealing with the government mindset.

 

[Interpol]

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.

”

Johnson's "War on Poverty" was NOT a dismal failure. The problem is that the war only lasted about 6 years.

Medicare and Social Security and Welfare were working. In just those 6 years, poverty was cut in half. By the mid 70's, poverty among seniors was practically wiped out.

But wrongheaded policies trying to dismantle the safety net by Republicans while changing the tax code to send all of our wealth straight up to the top worked to make everything we see now.

We still live within a trickle-down theory, which is why most of us pay a higher rate of income tax than Mitt Romney does. Most people I know paid between 25-30% last year. Romney's rate is half that because the theory goes he'll invest more of his savings in America, even though ALL the studies show the exact opposite.

The OP's theory that the War On Poverty was meant to enrich special interest groups is wrong. It was designed to help people, and for a time it did until the country kept lurching towards the right ever since the mid-60's. There aren't even that many actual liberals still around anymore after Sanders and Warren and a handful of others. Everyone's about big business now, listening to the dollar signs from campaigning contributors over we the people.

 

[Bfgrn]

Government Action Is Literally The Only Reason We Have Less Poverty Now Than In 1967

Everything you need to know about the war on poverty

 

[Bfgrn]

Government Aid Helped Cut U.S. Poverty Rate Nearly In Half: CBPP

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

”

Johnson's "War on Poverty" was NOT a dismal failure. The problem is that the war only lasted about 6 years.

Medicare and Social Security and Welfare were working. In just those 6 years, poverty was cut in half. By the mid 70's, poverty among seniors was practically wiped out.

But wrongheaded policies trying to dismantle the safety net by Republicans while changing the tax code to send all of our wealth straight up to the top worked to make everything we see now.

We still live within a trickle-down theory, which is why most of us pay a higher rate of income tax than Mitt Romney does. Most people I know paid between 25-30% last year. Romney's rate is half that because the theory goes he'll invest more of his savings in America, even though ALL the studies show the exact opposite.

The OP's theory that the War On Poverty was meant to enrich special interest groups is wrong. It was designed to help people, and for a time it did until the country kept lurching towards the right ever since the mid-60's. There aren't even that many actual liberals still around anymore after Sanders and Warren and a handful of others. Everyone's about big business now, listening to the dollar signs from campaigning contributors over we the people.

The Federal Government Didn't Lose the War on Poverty -- It Retreated | Anthony W. Orlando

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Government Action Is Literally The Only Reason We Have Less Poverty Now Than In 1967

Everything you need to know about the war on poverty

But we don't have less poverty.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

”

Johnson's "War on Poverty" was NOT a dismal failure. The problem is that the war only lasted about 6 years.

Medicare and Social Security and Welfare were working. In just those 6 years, poverty was cut in half. By the mid 70's, poverty among seniors was practically wiped out.

And your proof that one has anything to do with the other is?

But wrongheaded policies trying to dismantle the safety net by Republicans while changing the tax code to send all of our wealth straight up to the top worked to make everything we see now.

WHich wrongheaded policies?

BTW, the tax code is irrelevant.

We still live within a trickle-down theory, which is why most of us pay a higher rate of income tax than Mitt Romney does. Most people I know paid between 25-30% last year. Romney's rate is half that because the theory goes he'll invest more of his savings in America, even though ALL the studies show the exact opposite.

Irrelevant envy.

On a side note, we have always lived in a trickle-down economic theory, strictly speaking.

BTW, if trickle-down did not in fact work, what's behind the recent proposal of the "Promise Zones"?

The OP's theory that the War On Poverty was meant to enrich special interest groups is wrong. It was designed to help people, and for a time it did until the country kept lurching towards the right ever since the mid-60's. There aren't even that many actual liberals still around anymore after Sanders and Warren and a handful of others. Everyone's about big business now, listening to the dollar signs from campaigning contributors over we the people.

Well, it certainly has enriched the politicians and bureaucrats who run the faux charity scam, if that's what you mean by special interests.

Sanders is a proud and unabashed socialist., warren is a plain old crackpot. If that's liberal, you can have it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Government Action Is Literally The Only Reason We Have Less Poverty Now Than In 1967

Everything you need to know about the war on poverty

But we don't have less poverty.

Try to 'grasp' this reality. We don't live in a vacuum, or a static nation. Without those programs the poverty rate would be much higher.

 

[Bfgrn]

But how do you know for sure the current situation isn't the result they want?

In order for the far left elitists to stay in power they need the serfs on order to do so. The only thing they can do is make sure they create enough serfs in order to claim that if they are elected the government will save them from the "evil" rich people.

Yet the rich white far left elite that are pulling the stings are ignored by their loyal programmed followers.

So, my question stands, especially in light of the control that the left has over education, media and pop culture.

Something to noodle on.

Except conservatives re-wrote school books