the only remaining argument against capatalism

[Dad2three]

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs

Frankly, the only social welfare should be for people with no hope of working through disability, and then only when families can't support them.

Yeah, why shouldn't the richest nation on earth treat it's citizens like a 3rd world nation *shaking head*

 

[MisterBeale]

These rich mother fuckers don't give to "charities." They give to tax-exempt charitable, "foundations." If you are a political scientist and you research and study the social engineering aspect of these foundations, you would understand that these foundations have a more profound affect on the nation and the world than even the various governments of the earth. Ever hear of the older foundations like the Rockefeller foundation, the Carnegie Foundation or the foundation with close ties to the CIA and the Obama administration, the FORD FOUNDATION? Charity my ass. He's busy throwing in with other global elites. Probably giving to the Gates foundation I imagine. That one is all about eugenics and depopulation. Creepy, evil MOFO that Buffet is.

More right wing BS. Shocking

Well then, I guess all of congress was into "conspiracy theorizing" back in 1954. Because this is when it was researched and revealed that this is how the system was operating. Read the congressional report if you don't like the truth. Krugman works for one of the CFR bought and owned papers, of course he is going to parrot derogatory partisan bullshit.
Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations - 1954 - Robber Baron Hijacking of the USA
Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations - 1954 - Robber Baron Hijacking of the USA Christopher Dodd Free Download Streaming Internet Archive



It isn't about "left" or "right" politics, it is about being sovereign free men and women on the land our forefathers conceived a new ideal, that being freedom. Not a new form of oppression.

What I don't think you understand is that, what you want, is already being achieved. All this "wealth gap?" Is the wealth gap between the rulers of a bureaucratic communist State, and the people. EVERYONE will be equally poor, except the leaders. The more the wealth gap grows, the more they WILL socialize health care, education, car production, distribution, etc. the more they achieve their goals.

THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT. The final move will just be to change the name of what we have, it is all just cosmetics. In the end, the same folks will still be running the show.

Will it make you happy if we just do away with the labels now? Or do you want to make small communities having farmers markets illegal? Is that how much you disdain the free market?

THESE ARE THE FACTS. FACE 'EM BUDDY.

United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations

This article is about the 1952-1954 investigation into non-profits. For the 80s and 90s report on the People's Republic of China's covert operations within the United States, see Cox Report.


The Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives between 1952 and 1954. The committee was originally created by House Resolution 561 during the 82nd Congress. The committee investigated the use of funds by tax-exempt organizations (non-profit organizations) to see if they were being used to support communism



The committee's two Democrats, Wayne L. Hays and Gracie Pfost, refused to sign the final report. The Hays-Pfost minority report charged that the foundations "have been indicted and convicted under procedures which can only be characterized as barbaric." The minority accused Chairman Reece and the committee staff of a "deep-seated antagonism toward foundations" which might "well be characterized as pathological."

According to the minority report: The majority and committee staff were guilty of "an evil disregard of fundamental American guarantees." Anti-foundation witnesses were heard in full and their testimony published but the hearings were concluded as soon as pro-foundation witnesses began to present their case.


Reece said the foundations would be permitted to file statements and thereby get "a fair opportunity to put their best foot forward at the same time that they escaped the embarrassment of cross-examination." The committee staff, however, apparently "deliberately ignored" the statements in preparing the report. Judging by a pro-foundation witness allowed to testify, Dr. Pendleton Herring, Social Science Research Council president whose testimony was cut off "midway," public testimony "was far from embarrassing" and was "the one certain way that [those] accused by the staff...could destroy the deadly inferences, innuendoes and charges." By contrast, the committee gave 3 days to the testimony of San Francisco attorney Aaron Sargent, whose political and economic thinking could be judged by his charge that the U.S. "income tax was part of a plot by Fabian Socialists operating from England to pave the way for socialism in this country."



lol


United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

fkking ruight wing morons!!!

IOW, Even Wikipedia backs up what I have wrote. You look it up, and wiki spins it like, oh, gee, yeah, foundations HAVE an inordinate affect on American government and culture. . . but. . . but. . . the committee didn't give foundations minions enough time to tell them why turning Americans from individualists to socialists is a good thing.

You don't get it. YOU have been the victim of foundation work. From the schools, to the media you listen to, to the resources you actively use, you are the product of foundation thinking. That is the point. You just don't see it. Your whole post has just agreed with me. Thank you very much.

You know what I find just a TAD ironic? YOU GO TO A FOUNDATION, for your information about how foundations are controlling our culture, our thinking and our freedom. I noticed in that stub, unlike many in Wikipedia, the "Criticisms," were poorly referenced, and a few of the seven References were inaccessible. IOW, you swallowed secondary info from a foundation ABOUT foundations. It could just be made UP! Could you be more obtuse?


You must not know me very well, b/c most posters 'round these parts will tell you I am fiercely independent. Only partisans go looking for BS to support their own POV. You had some good points at the beginning of this thread, but you became highly partisan as soon as you wanted to paint all the founding fathers as a monolithic bunch that all agree with each other on everything. They didn't. The only thing I am sure they would agree on is that you are being a cad.

Independent? Oh you mean right wing libertarian nutjobber!



AGAIN BUBBA


More right wing BS. Shocking

 

[MisterBeale]

When politicians in DC discuss income inequality.

[Highest-income counties]

Whether from the left, or right, MORE government is DEFINITELY NOT the solution. We can see where the income inequality, graft and corruption goes.

 

[Conservative65]

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs

Frankly, the only social welfare should be for people with no hope of working through disability, and then only when families can't support them.

Yeah, why shouldn't the richest nation on earth treat it's citizens like a 3rd world nation *shaking head*

Why should't those able bodied enough to work get a ******* job instead of expecting someone else to support them. Better yet, why don't YOU use YOUR money to help them when they won't help themselves.

 

[Conservative65]

The wealth gap then:
Poor people walk where they need to go on dirty, dusty roads, lucky to have shoes.
Rich people ride in horse-drawn carriages.

The wealth gap now:
Poor people drive their 2001 Ford Focus hither and thither.
Rich people drive their 2016 Lamborghini to and fro.

This dramatic decrease in the wealth gap brought to you by Capitalism.

Really?


The inequality gap, brought to you by conservative policy (can you say trickle down???)

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs designed to motivate people to do better brought to you by the Democrats.

Poverty percentage then and now the same.

Yeah, we spent trillions on war, does war still exist Bubba? lol

The War on Poverty’s surprising success

But the official poverty numbers mask a substantial reduction in poverty attributable to government efforts, and although the OEO proved a short-lived failure, other poverty programs implemented under Johnson–Medicare, Medicaid, and, yes, food stamps–achieved measurable success.

Even judging by the official poverty rate (currently $23,550 for a family of four), Johnson’s anti-poverty programs enjoyed initial success. The poverty rate for African-Americans dropped precipitously for the remainder of Johnson’s term. It evened off for the next 25 years, then dropped again under President Bill Clinton before rising slightly during the past decade. The poverty rate for the elderly dropped dramatically under Johnson and Nixon and, less dramatically, continues to do so.

Overall, the official poverty rate declined significantly through Nixon’s first term before leveling off; since the 2008 crash it’s been rising.

None of these calculations include in-kind benefits through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and none include the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program targeted to the working poor that was implemented under President Gerald Ford and greatly expanded under Reagan and Clinton. When these are factored in, the poverty rate has dropped nearly in half.

The War on Poverty s surprising success MSNBC


OOPS, RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS LOSE AGAIN!!!

When then poverty rate today is the same percentage as it was before the war on poverty, the only losers are those of us forced to fund those programs. What else would MSNBC say? The percentages don't lie but partisan Liberal hacks on MSNBC do. I guess as long as social welfare is around you'll be able to think you actually earned the money you get from it.

 

[Conservative65]

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs

Frankly, the only social welfare should be for people with no hope of working through disability, and then only when families can't support them.

Absolutely. There is a big difference between those who can't work and those who won't work. The former should be helped and the latter can go without.

 

[Indofred]

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs

Frankly, the only social welfare should be for people with no hope of working through disability, and then only when families can't support them.

Absolutely. There is a big difference between those who can't work and those who won't work. The former should be helped and the latter can go without.

You find they get off their fat lazy arses when no one dishes out free money.
No such social welfare here, so people work for a living.

 

[Indofred]

Why should't those able bodied enough to work get a ******* job instead of expecting someone else to support them

Absolutely.
I've been unemployed twice, both for just a few days because I bloody well went out and found a job.
I didn't get fussy, so I got work.
My final period of unemployment was by choice, but I when I decided I wanted to work, I went out and found some.
The fact I had to move across the country didn't matter - I felt it was time to start earning, so I did what was needed.
That's much of the problem with lazy fools - they want everything dished up on a silver platter, but aren't willing to put themselves out to achieve their goals.....if they have any past beer money.

 

[Conservative65]

Why should't those able bodied enough to work get a ******* job instead of expecting someone else to support them

Absolutely.
I've been unemployed twice, both for just a few days because I bloody well went out and found a job.
I didn't get fussy, so I got work.
My final period of unemployment was by choice, but I when I decided I wanted to work, I went out and found some.
The fact I had to move across the country didn't matter - I felt it was time to start earning, so I did what was needed.
That's much of the problem with lazy fools - they want everything dished up on a silver platter, but aren't willing to put themselves out to achieve their goals.....if they have any past beer money.

Same here. Twice. Once in 1990 due to economy and once in 1993 due to politics in the workplace. Difference is my first thought was to go elsewhere and WORK just like yours. I didn't expect people to feel sorry for me nor did I feel sorry for myself. .

 

[Conservative65]

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs

Frankly, the only social welfare should be for people with no hope of working through disability, and then only when families can't support them.

Absolutely. There is a big difference between those who can't work and those who won't work. The former should be helped and the latter can go without.

You find they get off their fat lazy arses when no one dishes out free money.
No such social welfare here, so people work for a living.

That's why I say two things could be handled by deporting illegals. Those who say the illegals do job Americans won't do would be gone and those jobs could be offered to someone that isn't working. If the latter says no, benefits are gone. Two problems solved. Illegals gone and those who say they can't find a job have one or what it costs to keep them up no longer is in play. Problem solved and it doesn't matter whether or not they want the job.

 

[Dad2three]

When politicians in DC discuss income inequality.

[Highest-income counties]

Whether from the left, or right, MORE government is DEFINITELY NOT the solution. We can see where the income inequality, graft and corruption goes.

Yet the closest thing to the libertarian paradise is Honduras or Somalia, weird you wingnutters don't accept reality. What are you 15 y/o?

 

[Dad2three]

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs

Frankly, the only social welfare should be for people with no hope of working through disability, and then only when families can't support them.

Yeah, why shouldn't the richest nation on earth treat it's citizens like a 3rd world nation *shaking head*

Why should't those able bodied enough to work get a ******* job instead of expecting someone else to support them. Better yet, why don't YOU use YOUR money to help them when they won't help themselves.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wingers EVER have Bubba?


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Dad2three]

The wealth gap then:
Poor people walk where they need to go on dirty, dusty roads, lucky to have shoes.
Rich people ride in horse-drawn carriages.

The wealth gap now:
Poor people drive their 2001 Ford Focus hither and thither.
Rich people drive their 2016 Lamborghini to and fro.

This dramatic decrease in the wealth gap brought to you by Capitalism.

Really?


The inequality gap, brought to you by conservative policy (can you say trickle down???)

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs designed to motivate people to do better brought to you by the Democrats.

Poverty percentage then and now the same.

Yeah, we spent trillions on war, does war still exist Bubba? lol

The War on Poverty’s surprising success

But the official poverty numbers mask a substantial reduction in poverty attributable to government efforts, and although the OEO proved a short-lived failure, other poverty programs implemented under Johnson–Medicare, Medicaid, and, yes, food stamps–achieved measurable success.

Even judging by the official poverty rate (currently $23,550 for a family of four), Johnson’s anti-poverty programs enjoyed initial success. The poverty rate for African-Americans dropped precipitously for the remainder of Johnson’s term. It evened off for the next 25 years, then dropped again under President Bill Clinton before rising slightly during the past decade. The poverty rate for the elderly dropped dramatically under Johnson and Nixon and, less dramatically, continues to do so.

Overall, the official poverty rate declined significantly through Nixon’s first term before leveling off; since the 2008 crash it’s been rising.

None of these calculations include in-kind benefits through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and none include the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program targeted to the working poor that was implemented under President Gerald Ford and greatly expanded under Reagan and Clinton. When these are factored in, the poverty rate has dropped nearly in half.

The War on Poverty s surprising success MSNBC


OOPS, RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS LOSE AGAIN!!!

When then poverty rate today is the same percentage as it was before the war on poverty, the only losers are those of us forced to fund those programs. What else would MSNBC say? The percentages don't lie but partisan Liberal hacks on MSNBC do. I guess as long as social welfare is around you'll be able to think you actually earned the money you get from it.

Got it, reality isn't accepted in your world. Shocking

 

[Conservative65]

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs

Frankly, the only social welfare should be for people with no hope of working through disability, and then only when families can't support them.

Yeah, why shouldn't the richest nation on earth treat it's citizens like a 3rd world nation *shaking head*

Why should't those able bodied enough to work get a ******* job instead of expecting someone else to support them. Better yet, why don't YOU use YOUR money to help them when they won't help themselves.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wingers EVER have Bubba?


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Still doesn't entitle someone to another person's money. If you feel they need, write a check to them personally. You won't because you'd rather see someone else forced to do it so you can take credit for having done nothing.

You're the kind that believes professional wrestling is real but the moon landing was faked.

 

[Conservative65]

The wealth gap then:
Poor people walk where they need to go on dirty, dusty roads, lucky to have shoes.
Rich people ride in horse-drawn carriages.

The wealth gap now:
Poor people drive their 2001 Ford Focus hither and thither.
Rich people drive their 2016 Lamborghini to and fro.

This dramatic decrease in the wealth gap brought to you by Capitalism.

Really?


The inequality gap, brought to you by conservative policy (can you say trickle down???)

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs designed to motivate people to do better brought to you by the Democrats.

Poverty percentage then and now the same.

Yeah, we spent trillions on war, does war still exist Bubba? lol

The War on Poverty’s surprising success

But the official poverty numbers mask a substantial reduction in poverty attributable to government efforts, and although the OEO proved a short-lived failure, other poverty programs implemented under Johnson–Medicare, Medicaid, and, yes, food stamps–achieved measurable success.

Even judging by the official poverty rate (currently $23,550 for a family of four), Johnson’s anti-poverty programs enjoyed initial success. The poverty rate for African-Americans dropped precipitously for the remainder of Johnson’s term. It evened off for the next 25 years, then dropped again under President Bill Clinton before rising slightly during the past decade. The poverty rate for the elderly dropped dramatically under Johnson and Nixon and, less dramatically, continues to do so.

Overall, the official poverty rate declined significantly through Nixon’s first term before leveling off; since the 2008 crash it’s been rising.

None of these calculations include in-kind benefits through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and none include the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program targeted to the working poor that was implemented under President Gerald Ford and greatly expanded under Reagan and Clinton. When these are factored in, the poverty rate has dropped nearly in half.

The War on Poverty s surprising success MSNBC


OOPS, RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS LOSE AGAIN!!!

When then poverty rate today is the same percentage as it was before the war on poverty, the only losers are those of us forced to fund those programs. What else would MSNBC say? The percentages don't lie but partisan Liberal hacks on MSNBC do. I guess as long as social welfare is around you'll be able to think you actually earned the money you get from it.

Got it, reality isn't accepted in your world. Shocking

The reality is that the percentage in poverty today is the SAME as it was before all these social welfare programs. That's the ONLY reality that matters. If you deny those percentages are the same, you're just simple minded stupid.

 

[Conservative65]

The wealth gap then:
Poor people walk where they need to go on dirty, dusty roads, lucky to have shoes.
Rich people ride in horse-drawn carriages.

The wealth gap now:
Poor people drive their 2001 Ford Focus hither and thither.
Rich people drive their 2016 Lamborghini to and fro.

This dramatic decrease in the wealth gap brought to you by Capitalism.

Really?


The inequality gap, brought to you by conservative policy (can you say trickle down???)

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs designed to motivate people to do better brought to you by the Democrats.

Poverty percentage then and now the same.

Yeah, we spent trillions on war, does war still exist Bubba? lol

The War on Poverty’s surprising success

But the official poverty numbers mask a substantial reduction in poverty attributable to government efforts, and although the OEO proved a short-lived failure, other poverty programs implemented under Johnson–Medicare, Medicaid, and, yes, food stamps–achieved measurable success.

Even judging by the official poverty rate (currently $23,550 for a family of four), Johnson’s anti-poverty programs enjoyed initial success. The poverty rate for African-Americans dropped precipitously for the remainder of Johnson’s term. It evened off for the next 25 years, then dropped again under President Bill Clinton before rising slightly during the past decade. The poverty rate for the elderly dropped dramatically under Johnson and Nixon and, less dramatically, continues to do so.

Overall, the official poverty rate declined significantly through Nixon’s first term before leveling off; since the 2008 crash it’s been rising.

None of these calculations include in-kind benefits through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and none include the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program targeted to the working poor that was implemented under President Gerald Ford and greatly expanded under Reagan and Clinton. When these are factored in, the poverty rate has dropped nearly in half.

The War on Poverty s surprising success MSNBC


OOPS, RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS LOSE AGAIN!!!

When then poverty rate today is the same percentage as it was before the war on poverty, the only losers are those of us forced to fund those programs. What else would MSNBC say? The percentages don't lie but partisan Liberal hacks on MSNBC do. I guess as long as social welfare is around you'll be able to think you actually earned the money you get from it.

Got it, reality isn't accepted in your world. Shocking

Why don't you support your own damn three kids instead of expecting someone else to do it for you.

 

[Dad2three]

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs

Frankly, the only social welfare should be for people with no hope of working through disability, and then only when families can't support them.

Yeah, why shouldn't the richest nation on earth treat it's citizens like a 3rd world nation *shaking head*

Why should't those able bodied enough to work get a ******* job instead of expecting someone else to support them. Better yet, why don't YOU use YOUR money to help them when they won't help themselves.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wingers EVER have Bubba?


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Still doesn't entitle someone to another person's money. If you feel they need, write a check to them personally. You won't because you'd rather see someone else forced to do it so you can take credit for having done nothing.

You're the kind that believes professional wrestling is real but the moon landing was faked.

AGAIN, we tried your nonsense before PROGRESSIVE POLICIES built the worlds largest middle class, it looked a lot like Indonesia (or other 3rd world nations), your new fluff buddies paradise!!!


When are you going to grow a brain Bubba? ONE state/nation to EVER use your libertarian BS EVER? lol

 

[Conservative65]

Frankly, the only social welfare should be for people with no hope of working through disability, and then only when families can't support them.

Yeah, why shouldn't the richest nation on earth treat it's citizens like a 3rd world nation *shaking head*

Why should't those able bodied enough to work get a ******* job instead of expecting someone else to support them. Better yet, why don't YOU use YOUR money to help them when they won't help themselves.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wingers EVER have Bubba?


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Still doesn't entitle someone to another person's money. If you feel they need, write a check to them personally. You won't because you'd rather see someone else forced to do it so you can take credit for having done nothing.

You're the kind that believes professional wrestling is real but the moon landing was faked.

AGAIN, we tried your nonsense before PROGRESSIVE POLICIES built the worlds largest middle class, it looked a lot like Indonesia (or other 3rd world nations), your new fluff buddies paradise!!!


When are you going to grow a brain Bubba? ONE state/nation to EVER use your libertarian BS EVER? lol

We've tried the bleeding heart policies for well over 50 years and still have the same percentage in poverty.

Hard to do the right thing when enough of you piss ant bleeding hearts that rely on my hard work think someone owes you something.

The progressive mindset is only part of what's your is yours and the rest of your is mine.

 

[Dad2three]

Really?


The inequality gap, brought to you by conservative policy (can you say trickle down???)

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs designed to motivate people to do better brought to you by the Democrats.

Poverty percentage then and now the same.

Yeah, we spent trillions on war, does war still exist Bubba? lol

The War on Poverty’s surprising success

But the official poverty numbers mask a substantial reduction in poverty attributable to government efforts, and although the OEO proved a short-lived failure, other poverty programs implemented under Johnson–Medicare, Medicaid, and, yes, food stamps–achieved measurable success.

Even judging by the official poverty rate (currently $23,550 for a family of four), Johnson’s anti-poverty programs enjoyed initial success. The poverty rate for African-Americans dropped precipitously for the remainder of Johnson’s term. It evened off for the next 25 years, then dropped again under President Bill Clinton before rising slightly during the past decade. The poverty rate for the elderly dropped dramatically under Johnson and Nixon and, less dramatically, continues to do so.

Overall, the official poverty rate declined significantly through Nixon’s first term before leveling off; since the 2008 crash it’s been rising.

None of these calculations include in-kind benefits through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and none include the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program targeted to the working poor that was implemented under President Gerald Ford and greatly expanded under Reagan and Clinton. When these are factored in, the poverty rate has dropped nearly in half.

The War on Poverty s surprising success MSNBC


OOPS, RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS LOSE AGAIN!!!

When then poverty rate today is the same percentage as it was before the war on poverty, the only losers are those of us forced to fund those programs. What else would MSNBC say? The percentages don't lie but partisan Liberal hacks on MSNBC do. I guess as long as social welfare is around you'll be able to think you actually earned the money you get from it.

Got it, reality isn't accepted in your world. Shocking

The reality is that the percentage in poverty today is the SAME as it was before all these social welfare programs. That's the ONLY reality that matters. If you deny those percentages are the same, you're just simple minded stupid.

ONLY if you use conservative "reality" Bubba. Period



The trouble is that the official poverty rate is a lousy indicator of people’s material well-being. It misses all that the poor get — their total consumption. It counts cash transfers from government but not non-cash transfers (food stamps, school lunches) and tax refunds under the EITC. Some income is underreported; also, the official poverty line overstates price increases and, therefore, understates purchasing power. Eliminating these defects, economists Bruce Meyer of the University of Chicago and James Sullivan of the University of Notre Dame built a consumption-based index that estimates the 2010 poverty rate at about 5 percent.

People at the bottom aren’t well-off, but they’re better off than they once were.

Robert J. Samuelson How we won and lost the War on Poverty - The Washington Post


IF you think spending trillions doesn't help those on the margins, you are a conservative moron Bubba...

 

[Dad2three]

Really?


The inequality gap, brought to you by conservative policy (can you say trickle down???)

The waste of trillions on social welfare programs designed to motivate people to do better brought to you by the Democrats.

Poverty percentage then and now the same.

Yeah, we spent trillions on war, does war still exist Bubba? lol

The War on Poverty’s surprising success

But the official poverty numbers mask a substantial reduction in poverty attributable to government efforts, and although the OEO proved a short-lived failure, other poverty programs implemented under Johnson–Medicare, Medicaid, and, yes, food stamps–achieved measurable success.

Even judging by the official poverty rate (currently $23,550 for a family of four), Johnson’s anti-poverty programs enjoyed initial success. The poverty rate for African-Americans dropped precipitously for the remainder of Johnson’s term. It evened off for the next 25 years, then dropped again under President Bill Clinton before rising slightly during the past decade. The poverty rate for the elderly dropped dramatically under Johnson and Nixon and, less dramatically, continues to do so.

Overall, the official poverty rate declined significantly through Nixon’s first term before leveling off; since the 2008 crash it’s been rising.

None of these calculations include in-kind benefits through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and none include the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program targeted to the working poor that was implemented under President Gerald Ford and greatly expanded under Reagan and Clinton. When these are factored in, the poverty rate has dropped nearly in half.

The War on Poverty s surprising success MSNBC


OOPS, RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS LOSE AGAIN!!!

When then poverty rate today is the same percentage as it was before the war on poverty, the only losers are those of us forced to fund those programs. What else would MSNBC say? The percentages don't lie but partisan Liberal hacks on MSNBC do. I guess as long as social welfare is around you'll be able to think you actually earned the money you get from it.

Got it, reality isn't accepted in your world. Shocking

Why don't you support your own damn three kids instead of expecting someone else to do it for you.

LOL, That's the best you have Bubba? Seriously? What your mind never got past the Simpson's? lol