The War On Poverty

[S.J.]

Benefactors?!

That would make sense if white people were actually benefactors. They are not. They are debtors. You owe the debt your ancestors created by creating a system that enslaved the children of the original slaves, destroyed Black families, and caused an academic and socio-economic gap due to Jim Crow. Whites got to participate in numerous homesteading acts that gave land away where Blacks were not allowed to participate. Give me a break please.

You've more than been paid back through welfare.

I doubt that. You poor whites had welfare created for you and Blacks were denied until relatively recently. Then your handlers created more systems to keep Blacks in line. You are not of the elite so I don't fault you for purposefully planning the system, just participating unknowingly but willingly in it.

I wouldn't call 50 years relatively recent.

 

[Asclepias]

You've more than been paid back through welfare.

I doubt that. You poor whites had welfare created for you and Blacks were denied until relatively recently. Then your handlers created more systems to keep Blacks in line. You are a pion so I don't fault you for purposefully planning the system, just participating unknowingly but willingly in it.

I wouldn't call 50 years relatively recent.

Thats probably because you don't have a dictionary on hand to help you define "relatively". Try the 1800's for the beginning of welfare. Blacks were largely excluded until 1967. Until then whites made up the almost the entire population receiving it. Learn you history white guy.

 

[RKMBrown]

I doubt that. You poor whites had welfare created for you and Blacks were denied until relatively recently. Then your handlers created more systems to keep Blacks in line. You are a pion so I don't fault you for purposefully planning the system, just participating unknowingly but willingly in it.

I wouldn't call 50 years relatively recent.

Thats probably because you don't have a dictionary on hand to help you define "relatively". Try the 1800's for the beginning of welfare. Blacks were largely excluded until 1967. Until then whites made up the almost the entire population receiving it. Learn you history white guy.

Wow... just wow.

 

[BillyZane]

I doubt that. You poor whites had welfare created for you and Blacks were denied until relatively recently. Then your handlers created more systems to keep Blacks in line. You are a pion so I don't fault you for purposefully planning the system, just participating unknowingly but willingly in it.

I wouldn't call 50 years relatively recent.

Thats probably because you don't have a dictionary on hand to help you define "relatively". Try the 1800's for the beginning of welfare. Blacks were largely excluded until 1967. Until then whites made up the almost the entire population receiving it. Learn you history white guy.

Well, isn't it a coincidence that allowing blacks access exploded the welfare rolls?

Blacks are owed NOTHING. A black man was elected POTUS despite having NO qualifications for being elected. That tells ANY reasonable person that racism is over in the majority of the US.

 

[RKMBrown]

I wouldn't call 50 years relatively recent.

Thats probably because you don't have a dictionary on hand to help you define "relatively". Try the 1800's for the beginning of welfare. Blacks were largely excluded until 1967. Until then whites made up the almost the entire population receiving it. Learn you history white guy.

Well, isn't it a coincidence that allowing blacks access exploded the welfare rolls?

Blacks are owed NOTHING. A black man was elected POTUS despite having NO qualifications for being elected. That tells ANY reasonable person that racism is over in the majority of the US.

No, Billy. That tells us that Affirmative Action is letting minorities have a job even if they have no qualifications for it. And the result of doing that is brutally obvious to almost all. Some people, however, have blinders on making them blind to this man's inferior ability.

 

[Bombur]

Other countries have been generally more successful waging war on poverty and income inequality than the US. There are examples of countries that rely on transfer payments and others that don't. Either way the US has done just as much to make income inequality worse as it has done to help it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Other countries have been generally more successful waging war on poverty and income inequality than the US. There are examples of countries that rely on transfer payments and others that don't. Either way the US has done just as much to make income inequality worse as it has done to help it.

Yeah well the democrats had no choice... they were about to go the way of the dodo bird and decided to burn the country to the ground to save their asses.

 

[Bombur]

Other countries have been generally more successful waging war on poverty and income inequality than the US. There are examples of countries that rely on transfer payments and others that don't. Either way the US has done just as much to make income inequality worse as it has done to help it.

Yeah well the democrats had no choice... they were about to go the way of the dodo bird and decided to burn the country to the ground to save their asses.

 

[RKMBrown]

Other countries have been generally more successful waging war on poverty and income inequality than the US. There are examples of countries that rely on transfer payments and others that don't. Either way the US has done just as much to make income inequality worse as it has done to help it.

Yeah well the democrats had no choice... they were about to go the way of the dodo bird and decided to burn the country to the ground to save their asses.

There is no easy explanation:

1) Democrats need voters.
2) When people approach middle age they tend to become more independent.
3) With SS firmly entrenched, even the elderly who became independent in middle age can continue with their desire to be more independent in old age.
4) When people become independent they prefer solutions that are best for independent
thinkers.
5) Republicans need voters.
6) Republicans, in general, push for solutions based mostly on a desire for increasing independence from government solutions (or at least they promise to do so), where democrats push for solutions based mostly on a desire for dependence on government solutions (they call it welfare).
7) Republican solutions for welfare are hand ups that get people off welfare and on to being independent.
8) Democrats fully understand that if people become independent they won't want to be democrats any more, they will have "grown up."
9) Post WWII found the democrats loosing voters hand over foot. With the death of the unions, the economic success of America, and the aging of the population, the Democrats found them selves needing a new base.
10) Throughout history poor and esp. poor minority groups have been easily led by the promise of easy money. This in contrast to independent people who look at offers of money with a scornful eye.
11) Throughout history poor people have been easily managed by very simple techniques used by radicals thorough history to control uneducated populations.
12) In 1971 a strategy guide was published by one of the democrat's lead mentors. The book is called Rules for Radicals, by Alinsky. Alinsky was a "Chicago community organizer."
13) Hilary and Obama were / and are both HUGE fans of now dead Alinsky. Hilary went so far as to write her college thesis on Alinsky. Without Alinsky community organizing in Chicago, there is no Obama Presidency.
14) The plan was hatched by the old and young turks of the democrat party (clean politician types (like Hillary) and radicals (weather underground terrorists who were friends of Obama)) to use the promise of welfare as a means to permanently capture a large portion of American Minorities, this by promising community improvements/organizing that are merely hand-outs and never really improve the community at all. This to sway their vote to the socialist (communist lite) ideal proffered by the Alinsky Model, which is the Democrat ideal.
15) Alinsky teaches, clearly throughout the book, that before America can be "fixed" it has to be torn down. He provides detailed steps and techniques to make that happen in his book. After reading the book you'll easily correlate many of the things being done by democrats and turn coat republicans alike, as things taught in Alinsky's book.

Hell Obama's entire campaign strategy to change everything about America.. fits right in with Alinsky's rule's for radicals plan of action.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Oh no, not another US sponsored War on Something! Don't we lose all those?

 

[gnarlylove]

Hidden History: The War on Poverty at 50

The war on poverty stopped when Nixon slashed the program associated with ending poverty.

 

[Katzndogz]

You can't win any war on poverty because poverty is relative.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Its not really a war on poverty.

Its a war on the poor.

 

[midcan5]

Without jobs there can really not be a war on poverty as poverty requires resources to lift everyone's boat. Johnson's work was a success, the stats prove that, but so many forget Nixon, Reagan, Bush and the legislative branch has fought LBJ as they still fight FDR. I answered in links below but will add a few items below for the non partisan reader.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/334639-the-war-on-poverty-4.html#post8477502

"Even then, with all that lofty rhetoric, the War on Poverty had many critics who regarded it as piecemeal.Pat Moynihan observed later that it was "oversold and underfinanced to the point that its failure was almost a matter of design" (he exaggerated in that it was not a failure, but point taken). And, even then, with all that lofty rhetoric, what was the first piece of Kennedy-legacy business that LBJ placed before the Congress? A tax cut! The Revenue Act of 1964 stands as the third-largest tax cut in postwar history, after Ronald Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s. This hardly made Kennedy or Johnson a supply-sider, but again: The tax cut came first, before everything else.

Worth remembering also about the early 1960s are three crucial points. First, the economy was roaring: GDP rose by nearly 6 percent in 1964, disposable income by 7 percent. Urban and rural poverty notwithstanding, many millions of Americans were simply free of any meaningful economic anxiety, and on the far horizon was nothing but sunshine. Second, more Americans were willing to identify themselves as liberal then, and far fewer as conservative: Gallup’s 2010 numbers show 42 percent of Americans call themselves conservative and just 19 percent liberal; in October 1964, though the categories were slightly different ("very" and "moderately" were attached to the labels), those numbers were 28 percent and 26 percent respectively–imagine what a different environment that made for. And third, many Republicans voted with the Democrats, even more than in FDR’s day. The crucial 67th vote for civil rights in the Senate, the one to break cloture? John J. Williams, Republican of Delaware. On Medicare in 1965, 13 of 30 Senate Republicans voted for it, as did 68 of 138 House Republicans. If we had a Republican Party even remotely like that today, nearly every item on the Obama agenda would have passed already, in some form."

"Indeed, in the years after officials in the Reagan administration radically altered how our government enforces our antimonopoly laws, the American economy underwent a truly revolutionary restructuring. Four great waves of mergers and acquisitions—in the mid-1980s, early ’90s, late ’90s, and between 2003 and 2007—transformed America’s industrial landscape at least as much as globalization. Over the same two decades, meanwhile, the spread of mega-retailers like Wal-Mart and Home Depot and agricultural behemoths like Smithfield and Tyson’s resulted in a more piecemeal approach to consolidation, through the destruction or displacement of countless independent family-owned businesses." Who Broke America’s Jobs Machine? - Barry C. Lynn and Phillip Longman

and a related piece on the war on the war on poverty aka Ryan's war on the poor.

"But this view of events ignores the fact that we don’t have enough aggregate demand to support full employment (or anything close to it) in this economy. For the last four and a half years, we have had at least three times as many job-seekers as we have had jobs (including almost seven times as many job-seekers in the summer of 2009). We aren’t lacking in motivated workers, or elbow grease, or personal responsibility, we are lacking in available work. And during sustained downturns such as this, you need federal assistance more than ever." Paul Ryan’s War on the War on Poverty | Ten Miles Square | The Washington Monthly

 

[jasonnfree]

Yeah well the democrats had no choice... they were about to go the way of the dodo bird and decided to burn the country to the ground to save their asses.

There is no easy explanation:

1) Democrats need voters.
2) When people approach middle age they tend to become more independent.
3) With SS firmly entrenched, even the elderly who became independent in middle age can continue with their desire to be more independent in old age.
4) When people become independent they prefer solutions that are best for independent
thinkers.
5) Republicans need voters.
6) Republicans, in general, push for solutions based mostly on a desire for increasing independence from government solutions (or at least they promise to do so), where democrats push for solutions based mostly on a desire for dependence on government solutions (they call it welfare).
7) Republican solutions for welfare are hand ups that get people off welfare and on to being independent.
8) Democrats fully understand that if people become independent they won't want to be democrats any more, they will have "grown up."
9) Post WWII found the democrats loosing voters hand over foot. With the death of the unions, the economic success of America, and the aging of the population, the Democrats found them selves needing a new base.
10) Throughout history poor and esp. poor minority groups have been easily led by the promise of easy money. This in contrast to independent people who look at offers of money with a scornful eye.
11) Throughout history poor people have been easily managed by very simple techniques used by radicals thorough history to control uneducated populations.
12) In 1971 a strategy guide was published by one of the democrat's lead mentors. The book is called Rules for Radicals, by Alinsky. Alinsky was a "Chicago community organizer."
13) Hilary and Obama were / and are both HUGE fans of now dead Alinsky. Hilary went so far as to write her college thesis on Alinsky. Without Alinsky community organizing in Chicago, there is no Obama Presidency.
14) The plan was hatched by the old and young turks of the democrat party (clean politician types (like Hillary) and radicals (weather underground terrorists who were friends of Obama)) to use the promise of welfare as a means to permanently capture a large portion of American Minorities, this by promising community improvements/organizing that are merely hand-outs and never really improve the community at all. This to sway their vote to the socialist (communist lite) ideal proffered by the Alinsky Model, which is the Democrat ideal.
15) Alinsky teaches, clearly throughout the book, that before America can be "fixed" it has to be torn down. He provides detailed steps and techniques to make that happen in his book. After reading the book you'll easily correlate many of the things being done by democrats and turn coat republicans alike, as things taught in Alinsky's book.

Hell Obama's entire campaign strategy to change everything about America.. fits right in with Alinsky's rule's for radicals plan of action.

If democrats were losing out to voters after ww2, then how do you explain Truman beating Dewey? What's with you guys and Alinsky? Obama was a little kid when Alinsky died.

 

[gnarlylove]

Informative description on the take back in the day
"The narrative in the 1970s was that the war on poverty had failed because of social disintegration: government attempts to help the poor were outpaced by the collapse of the family, rising crime, and so on. And on the right, and to some extent in the center, it was often argued that government aid was if anything promoting this social disintegration. Poverty was therefore a problem of values and social cohesion, not money....
But that was a long time ago. These days crime is way down, so is teenage pregnancy, and so on; society did not collapse. What collapsed instead is economic opportunity. If progress against poverty has been disappointing over the past half century, the reason is not the decline of the family but the rise of extreme inequality. "
From midican's link to Krugman's piece, nytimes.