Tens of trillions? Yawwnnn! Where are your links? Yawwnnn! I'd also like to see your references for the comparative cost of Obamacare vs your health scenario...got any charts or data to back that assertion up?
Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.
Yet today, 15 percent of Americans still live in poverty. That’s scarcely better than the 19 percent living in poverty at the time of Johnson’s speech. Nearly 22 percent of children live in poverty today. In 1964, it was 23 percent.
How could we have spent so much and achieved so little?
It’s not just a question of the inefficiency of government bureaucracies, although the multiplicity of programs and overlapping jurisdiction surely means that there is a lack of accountability within the system. Rather, the entire concept behind how we fight poverty is wrong.
The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable — giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, etc. — rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty. As a result, we have been successful in reducing the worst privations of poverty. Few Americans live with out the basic necessities of life, yet neither do they rise out of poverty. Moreover, their children are also likely to be poor.
Our goal should not be a society where people struggle along in poverty, dependent on government for just enough to survive, but rather a society where as few people as possible live in poverty, and where every American can reach his or her full potential.
War on Poverty at 50 -- Despite Trillions Spent Poverty Won Cato Institute
The heart of the War on Poverty report is its observation that most federal poverty-alleviation programs are essentially useless or incapable of having their impact measured in the real world.
The study observes that in 1965, the poverty rate was 17.3 percent. In 2012, it was 15 percent. This means taxpayers blew a staggering $20.7 trillion over the last half century in order to achieve a paltry 2.3 percentage point decrease in poverty.
The War on Poverty has barely made a dent in actual poverty
Broken down into less mind-blowing, easier-to-grasp figures, between 1965 and 2012 the average family of four spent roughly $146,000 per percentage-point drop in poverty, or $335,000 per family for the whole 2.3 percentage-point reduction.
Only the most blinkered or jaded among us in the body politic believe that sucking $9 trillion out of the private, productive economy for each single percentage-point reduction in the poverty rate constitutes an acceptable return on investment.
Which brings us to the modern “progressive” Left.
Those on the Left consider the gentle statistical dip in poverty over five decades to be social progress achieved by way of holy coercive redistribution. Mere results have always been less important to the Left than intentions.
The War on Poverty 21 Trillion Later
The War on Poverty 50 Years Later Budget.House.Gov
Well, thanks for the links. So, OK, 50 years have gone by with both GOP and democrat administrations at the helm... Why are you blaming Obama? Why didn't Reagan or the Bushes eliminate it on their watches? Oh, I forgot, you conservatives don't care about poverty except as a tool to use against the Democrats. When your guys are in the WH poverty becomes a non issue.
Now where did all that money go? Who profited from the War on Poverty? I suspect the rich got richer and the poor got poorer because of the War on Poverty. That money just didn't disappear. The poor got stiffed and the people who gained (republicans) get to point the finger at democrats for the spending that benefitted Republicans. Its not as simple s that but that is the way it is broadcast for the general gullible public to digest.
So, while laughing all the way to the banks they own, the republicans don't thank Johnson for initiating their cash cow ( the war on poverty] No! Now they want to win back the presidency and Congress so they can legislate more ways to keep all that dough and not have to share it in any way form or fashion.
Obama is building on it tremendously. Republicans are also big spenders. Conservatives need to take over the Republican party, then win elections or eventually or all the big spenders will collapsed the economy.The problem is, too much demagoguery by the leftist, hate mongers and race baiters like Obama and his leftist buddies. He should be ashamed at what has happened to race relations in this country since he became president. He's not though, hate, jealously and crises help the leftist...
Nice Dodge. Did you miss the part of my narrative pertaining to Republicans profiting
from the War on Poverty? No comment?
Are you ready for the truth? Here it comes, ready or not.
Were you even born when Reagan was president? if you were alive then you were very young and you probably weren't into politics at all. I was alive then and I remember the divide and conquer strategy used by the Republicans, specifically Reagan Republicans. That attempt to divide and conquer went on for 40 years; and, judging by your commentary, that timeworn outdated GOP strategy is still working to divide. The conquering portion though, has been somewhat problematic. Yes you won the majority of Congress seats back by using the same divisive strategy but I think that tactic just might have run it's course. And now the twist is to shift the blame on to Obama as being the great divider. Well, good luck with that.
Were you even born when Reagan was president? if you were alive then you were very young and you probably weren't into politics at all. I was alive then and I remember the divide and conquer strategy used by the Republicans, specifically Reagan Republicans. That attempt to divide and conquer went on for 40 years; and, judging by your commentary, that timeworn outdated GOP strategy is still working to divide. The conquering portion though, has been somewhat problematic. Yes you won the majority of Congress seats back by using the same divisive strategy but I think that tactic just might have run it's course. And now the twist is to shift the blame on to Obama as being the great divider. Well, good luck with that.
almost forty years Republicans have pursued a divide-and-conquer strategy intended to convince working-class whites that the poor were their enemies. The Republicans told the working class that its hard-earned tax dollars were being siphoned off to pay for “welfare queens” (as Ronald Reagan decorously dubbed a black single woman on welfare) and other nefarious loafers
.
The poor were “them” — lazy, dependent on government handouts and overwhelmingly black — in sharp contrast to “us,” who were working ever harder, proudly independent (even sending wives and mothers to work, in order to prop up family incomes dragged down by shrinking male paychecks) and white. [ /quote ]
1.
what is it with you leftist? You think spending tons of money creating more bureaucracy ,wasting more money maintaining that bureaucracy is a good thing.
Tens of trillions of dollars spent and most of the problems are worst than ever
