The War On Poverty: Lost

[Camp]

What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?

It misdirects assets, takes what is earned and gives it away in exchange for votes, and has no interest in actually solving societal problems.

Are voters so stupid that they are willing to overlook the black hole of abysmal waste that the welfare state has become?






1. "Today, [September 16, 2014 ] the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50thanniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty.
Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.


2. ... taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.


3. ... government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)


4. .... about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

5. .... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


6. [The scam:] Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state."
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop


How much more clearly does the public need to be shown that Liberalism is a failure?

The poor are a Hell of a lot fatter, and have better shoes and tattoos than they did before the War on Poverty.

Isn't "progress" wonderful.

Well at least you are admitting the OP is a lie. The War on Poverty was won. Now it becomes a matter of whining about some of the spoils being misused and wasted.

 

[Daktoria]

...and that's exactly why people want to regulate the economy. You're forgetting how people work to live. They don't work to work.

How am I forgetting that?

If anyone's a Marxist, it's you for basically advocating a dictatorship of the working class. Merely working for a lot of money doesn't make you profitable. It's the conversion of money to real life experience that makes you profitable.

That's just stupid, you don't know what a Marxist is.

Which would you rather be - a moderately rich person who lives a fulfilling life, or a very rich person who lives a miserly life?

What does that have to do with anything?

Actually, I do know what a Marxist is, tyvm. We can discuss dialectic and historical materialism all you want and how they believe social alienation happens from commodity fetishism despite how there's nothing really intrinsically wrong with being a consumer. Social alienation actually comes from the deconstruction of principles in society. It's an abstract, not concrete, process.

The point is you merely focused on the creation of wealth. You forgot why people create wealth. The working class does not necessarily have to be those on the bottom of society. It can be anyone in society who relates primarily with working.

 

[PoliticalChic]

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

 

[NYcarbineer]

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

That would only be true if you could prove the counterfactual, which would be how much better or worse poverty in America would be if there had been none of the programs included under the title of 'war on poverty'.

For example, would America's poor over the last 50 years be better off if there had been no Medicaid?

You would also have to factor in such elements as, how has America's economy changed? For example, how much of the relatively labor intensive, relatively good paying jobs that were in the American economy of the '60's,

which were a significant 'remedy' for poverty,

are around today, relative to the population.

 

[Camp]

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

You just refuse to acknowledge the vast difference between poverty before the the war on poverty and poverty today. In another thread you will probably complain about all the benefits poor people receive, if you haven't already. Kids and old people get fed and have roofs over their heads. Grandma and Grandpa don't have to eat pet food for survival. Toddlers and young children are not forcer to go to bed hungry night after night. Pregnant women and infants don't have suffer from the lack of nourishing food. We won the war.

 

[Bfgrn]

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

WOW, you are now resorting to 'chanting'...LOL!!!

The GOP’s 1 Trillion Dollar Lie
How a right-wing whopper about the cost of welfare was born.

There's a new economic myth that's now being amplified by the conservative media. It demonizes vital public services and suggests that the poor are doing just fine thanks to the largesse of the country's “makers.” Conservatives are being told that the United States is now spending vast fortunes combating poverty—more than we dedicate to national defense, Social Security and Medicare.

This new spin is notable not for its mendacity—although it is completely divorced from reality—but because its origins are easily traced, allowing us to see how these kinds of distortions come to be. This one originated with the work of an analyst at the Heritage Foundation who is well known for his intellectual dishonesty. It was then picked up by Republican staffers on Capitol Hill, who lent the claim credibility by requesting a Congressional Research Service report on the analysis. They then further distorted the narrative before distributing it to friendly writers at conservative media outlets, who dutifully reported the falsehood. It will soon become conventional wisdom on the Right, further distorting conservatives' view of taxes and spending.

For fiscal year 2011, CRS identified roughly 80 overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these federal programs, when taken together with approximately $280 billion in state contributions, amounted to roughly $1 trillion.

Common sense should tell you that this is a ridiculous claim. Given that the United States has one of the weakest social safety nets in the world, it's pretty obvious that we're not spending more on each family in poverty than the median income—or more on the poor than we spend on defense, Social Security and Medicare. But let's dig into the details.

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines “welfare” like this:

a: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need

b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed

But that definition represents only a small share of the programs identified by the Republican staffers. Many, or most, are things no reasonable person would ever call “welfare.” There's aid to communities recovering from natural disasters; a number of job training programs; education grants—from Head Start for pre-schoolers to Pell Grants for low-income college students; money to enforce child support orders; programs that improve teachers' skills; and even screening programs to detect breast and cervical cancer in low-income communities.

A number of the programs identified by the Republican staffers provide money to institutions and communities rather than indviduals in need. Included is a program that gives money to “eligible colleges and universities to strengthen their management and fiscal operations,” funding for Americorps—which trains and places teachers in low-income communities—and another that gives rural communities assistance upgrading their water and sewage systems.

I asked an economist and budget expert—who didn't want to be named—how a grant for community projects can be considered “means-tested.” He explained that they aren't. Instead, they're awarded according to “a variety of considerations, including the median income of a jurisdiction's residents.” He added: “If you want to call that means-testing you are welcome to do so, since in America we are all entitled to our own definitions.”

The important takeaway here is that many of the programs that serve these communities provide benefits to people who aren't poor. When the federal government helps a rural community upgrade its water system, it may well help a lot of poor people, but clean water will come out of the taps of everyone in that community, rich, poor or somewhere in between. Aid to universities that serve a lot of low-income students will also help that university's middle-income students. And when you help a town with a lot of low-income residents rebuild after a natural disaster, the richest person in town will also benefit.

Another example: according to the Congressional Research Service, a number of the education programs included on the list result in “students from relatively well-off families receiving assistance, as there is no absolute income ceiling on eligibility.”

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

You just refuse to acknowledge the vast difference between poverty before the the war on poverty and poverty today. In another thread you will probably complain about all the benefits poor people receive, if you haven't already. Kids and old people get fed and have roofs over their heads. Grandma and Grandpa don't have to eat pet food for survival. Toddlers and young children are not forcer to go to bed hungry night after night. Pregnant women and infants don't have suffer from the lack of nourishing food. We won the war.

It's worse than that. She won't acknowledge that a person under the poverty line who receives benefits from the government is actually raised out of poverty, and that is not reflected in the standard poverty measure.

These people have a warped sense of what programs to help the poor do.

What they don't do is give a poor person a dose of government assistance, like a vaccine, and cure him of poverty, however,

that is the standard these people are using to claim that the war on poverty has been a failure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.

"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.

So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..

I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.

The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."

You are stumped, so your only retort is insults...


Politics

Behind Romney's Welfare Attacks, America's Top Poverty Denier
The false ads are inspired by a man with a long history of minimizing the struggles of the poor.

Sep. 13, 2012

In recent weeks, a Mitt Romney campaign ad has flashed across television screens blasting President Obama on the issue of welfare. The ad claims Obama "gutted" the requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law that recipients look for work in exchange for government support. Media fact-checkers quickly debunked Romney's attack—PolitiFact rated it "Pants on Fire"—and Obama's campaign lashed back with a TV ad of its own. Yet Romney stuck with the welfare attack on the stump, and Romney aide Ashley O'Connor said the ad was the campaign's most potent of 2012.

Romneyland didn't whip up the bogus welfare attack on its own. It relied instead on the work of Robert Rector, a senior researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, DC.

Few Americans outside the Beltway will recognize Rector's name. But it's worth knowing that, for a national campaign spot, Team Romney turned to a man who holds controversial, and in some cases inaccurate, views of poverty and economics. Rector has claimed that poverty doesn't impact children, that you're not really poor if you have air conditioning or a car, and that the very idea of welfare lifting Americans out of poverty is "idiotic."

$22 Trillion later...

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost

By that measure, your war on your own stupidity has been a failure, because you're just as stupid now as the day you got here.

See how that logic works?

 

[Wry Catcher]

As for anyone knowing economics, it seems the experts (and surely not the amateurs) have different ideas on what works and what don't. So don't pretend to be anything more than a parrot, at least until you write a book and win a noble prize.

I call you Karl for your Marxist rhetoric and adherence to the planks of the Manifesto, pretty straight forward. As for economics, again, the lawyers you parrot went to LAW school. Stop listening to them, they are lying to you. They say whatever will get you to give them the ubiquitous power of government guns.

And still, you don't even understand the simple concept in my post. Spending money without creating economic value harms the economy. You didn't get the lamp analogy, again.

If you invest money in a profitable investment, like a CD, you get a return, that grows your wealth.

If you invest money in buying a lamp, you get light. You may need it, but it doesn't grow your wealth.

Government does not create value, it destroys it. Whether or not you want what they do or not, you are not going to grow the economy through government spending.

If the money you pay in taxes builds a bridge across a river, which allows land to be developed and homes are built, stores are built, auto dealarships are built and jobs created for construction workers and cops and teachers and gardeners and cable installers and painters, plumbers, prostitutes and clerks, supervisors, managers and CEO's, the economy grows and grows. If you put you money into a CD today, you are lucky to earn more than the rate of inflation, and inflation is low.

 

[kaz]

Actually, I do know what a Marxist is, tyvm.

You're welcome. So, then why did you use it wrong? A small government libertarian is actually a Marxist? That's just stupid.

We can discuss dialectic and historical materialism all you want and how they believe social alienation happens from commodity fetishism despite how there's nothing really intrinsically wrong with being a consumer. Social alienation actually comes from the deconstruction of principles in society. It's an abstract, not concrete, process.

The point is you merely focused on the creation of wealth. You forgot why people create wealth. The working class does not necessarily have to be those on the bottom of society. It can be anyone in society who relates primarily with working.

The point is about economics, if you don't understand what I said, then ask questions rather than deflect with completely different points.

 

[kaz]

If the money you pay in taxes builds a bridge across a river, which allows land to be developed and homes are built, stores are built, auto dealarships are built and jobs created for construction workers and cops and teachers and gardeners and cable installers and painters, plumbers, prostitutes and clerks, supervisors, managers and CEO's, the economy grows and grows. If you put you money into a CD today, you are lucky to earn more than the rate of inflation, and inflation is low.

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

 

[Camp]

If the money you pay in taxes builds a bridge across a river, which allows land to be developed and homes are built, stores are built, auto dealarships are built and jobs created for construction workers and cops and teachers and gardeners and cable installers and painters, plumbers, prostitutes and clerks, supervisors, managers and CEO's, the economy grows and grows. If you put you money into a CD today, you are lucky to earn more than the rate of inflation, and inflation is low.

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

 

[kaz]

If the money you pay in taxes builds a bridge across a river, which allows land to be developed and homes are built, stores are built, auto dealarships are built and jobs created for construction workers and cops and teachers and gardeners and cable installers and painters, plumbers, prostitutes and clerks, supervisors, managers and CEO's, the economy grows and grows. If you put you money into a CD today, you are lucky to earn more than the rate of inflation, and inflation is low.

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the money you pay in taxes builds a bridge across a river, which allows land to be developed and homes are built, stores are built, auto dealarships are built and jobs created for construction workers and cops and teachers and gardeners and cable installers and painters, plumbers, prostitutes and clerks, supervisors, managers and CEO's, the economy grows and grows. If you put you money into a CD today, you are lucky to earn more than the rate of inflation, and inflation is low.

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

When you have nothing to post you still post - that's why I have no respect for you. And, yes, there are dumb questions.

But, I'll respond, otherwise you'll take your dumb question and claim victory while attacking me and not my argument - it's the way of the right wing fringe.

"

ixty-five years ago, America was is in the grips of the worst economic depression of the 20th century. In rural areas, the situation was particularly bleak especially for the 6 million Americans who earned their living as farmers. At a time when 90 percent of the urban population had electricity in their homes, only one in 10 rural Americans had electric service. The power companies felt the low population densities of the nation's rural heartland simply would not yield the type of profits they needed to justify extending service to 95 percent of the nation's land mass.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt realized that living standards in rural areas would continue to lag behind urban areas without electric service, and that it would take bold, decisive action to help rural Americans get it. So on May 11, 1935, he signed an executive order creating the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This federal agency helped rural Americans all across the nation form user owned cooperatives and provided them with loans needed to build a rural electric infrastructure. These co-ops, in partnership with USDA/REA, brought electric service to even the most remote corners of the nation. Electricity was the fuel for the economic engine that revolutionized rural life. In pre-electricity days, farm chores were often done by the dim light of kerosene or coal-oil lamps. Those flickering lights all too often illuminated faces of rural people crushed in their prime by the rigors of rural life, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said during an event in Washington, D.C., marking the 65th anniversary of the creation of the REA."

Link: When the lights came on

How much did it cost? Who the hell cares, look at the impact it had on the lives and products produced by rural American farmers.

 

[Camp]

If the money you pay in taxes builds a bridge across a river, which allows land to be developed and homes are built, stores are built, auto dealarships are built and jobs created for construction workers and cops and teachers and gardeners and cable installers and painters, plumbers, prostitutes and clerks, supervisors, managers and CEO's, the economy grows and grows. If you put you money into a CD today, you are lucky to earn more than the rate of inflation, and inflation is low.

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

You are doing a turn around now. Suddenly capitalism is dependent on some form of Marxism. Fact is that capitalism is dependent on government support and regulation or it would cease to exist in the form we have it today. Roads and bridges are just one example

If the money you pay in taxes builds a bridge across a river, which allows land to be developed and homes are built, stores are built, auto dealarships are built and jobs created for construction workers and cops and teachers and gardeners and cable installers and painters, plumbers, prostitutes and clerks, supervisors, managers and CEO's, the economy grows and grows. If you put you money into a CD today, you are lucky to earn more than the rate of inflation, and inflation is low.

And how much of FDR's spending was for that?

Do you want a list of some of the bridges still standing and being used in today's infrastructure or do you want to include the ones that have been replaced in the last decade or so?

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Without infrastructure and government controls and guidance capitalism can not exist. That was a fact long before Marx.

 

[kaz]

How much did it cost? Who the hell cares, look at the impact it had on the lives and products produced by rural American farmers.

So if we talk about gas mileage for cars, I have to debate why people want cars. That is your argument.

The point, simpleton, is the economic impact of government spending, particularly in this thread as it relates to poverty. The net economic impact = benefit - cost. You want to only count the benefit and ignore the cost. So by that standard, every dollar of government spending is worth it. You're a Marxist, of course you look at it that way. Government is your objective.

However, from an economic impact in regards to the thread regarding poverty, government spending doesn't reduce poverty unless the benefit is greater than the cost. And your response to that was, "Who the hell cares?" Well, everyone who isn't a Marxist like you and wants to discuss the economic impact of government spending.

Yes, genius, I want roads. Roads include bridges. No, that doesn't mean I have to accept Marxism. And it doesn't justify any and all government spending on roads and bridges. You may now proceed to not grasp my point or the discussion.

 

[kaz]

Yes, if I want roads, I have to accept Marxism. Every time liberals have to defend socialism, you go with roads. Roads are not even a plank of the Manifesto. Even Marx didn't think that point had to be made.

Without infrastructure and government controls and guidance capitalism can not exist. That was a fact long before Marx.

False for "government controls." Lawyers doing those controls show how they know nothing about economics. True for infrastructure, you stupid shit for brains moron. Which is why I'm not an anarchist. What is wrong with you people? Marxism or anarchy, those are our only choices. I already addressed that, just because I want roads, the lofty standard you set for yourself, doesn't mean I have to accept Marxism. I just made that point.

I also want civil and criminal courts, the police, the military, government to manage limited resources and government to and yes, those are necessary for capitalism to work.

Government using force to control markets is socialism and not necessary for capitalism to work. You liberals set such a high bar for yourselves. You want roads, you get MARXISM!!!! No, I don't.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How much did it cost? Who the hell cares, look at the impact it had on the lives and products produced by rural American farmers.

So if we talk about gas mileage for cars, I have to debate why people want cars. That is your argument.

The point, simpleton, is the economic impact of government spending, particularly in this thread as it relates to poverty. The net economic impact = benefit - cost. You want to only count the benefit and ignore the cost. So by that standard, every dollar of government spending is worth it. You're a Marxist, of course you look at it that way. Government is your objective.

However, from an economic impact in regards to the thread regarding poverty, government spending doesn't reduce poverty unless the benefit is greater than the cost. And your response to that was, "Who the hell cares?" Well, everyone who isn't a Marxist like you and wants to discuss the economic impact of government spending.

Yes, genius, I want roads. Roads include bridges. No, that doesn't mean I have to accept Marxism. And it doesn't justify any and all government spending on roads and bridges. You may now proceed to not grasp my point or the discussion.

Ya know I know you're full of crap. I simply get very boarded with assholes like you and Rabbi and CrusaderFrank - partisan parrots who make statements which are absurd.

Cost effective, cost benefit include a myriad of outcomes. The Highways built by IKE have created wealth, jobs and security. That's what I meant by "who the hell cares". The money spent and required to keep our highways open is returned 10, 100 or maybe 1,000 times. If conservatives had control, we would still be moving products from Boston to LA around the horn.

 

[Contumacious]

What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?

It misdirects assets, takes what is earned and gives it away in exchange for votes, and has no interest in actually solving societal problems.

Are voters so stupid that they are willing to overlook the black hole of abysmal waste that the welfare state has become?
?

Yep.

The parasites new neologism is "the zero sum game"

 

[PoliticalChic]

What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?

It misdirects assets, takes what is earned and gives it away in exchange for votes, and has no interest in actually solving societal problems.

Are voters so stupid that they are willing to overlook the black hole of abysmal waste that the welfare state has become?
?

Yep.

The parasites new neologism is "the zero sum game"

Well...actually, the recipients are winners in the material sense, although they lose what is far more important...

...and the Leftist/Liberals/Progressive/Democrats are the big winners in terms of power,money, and the ever-increasing spiral of America into the abyss......