If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   From the Department of Money Well Spent: After almost 50 years and untold trillions of dollars, the US poverty level is the same as it was when war was declared   (cnsnews.com) divider line 413
    More: Obvious, poverty line, President Johnson, Earned Income Tax Credit  
•       •       •

1405 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2012 at 12:22 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



413 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-26 05:12:09 PM

jigger: Job Creator: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x444]

Funny how the Great Society reforms resulted in the poverty rate plunging, it leveled off in 1979-1980, then rose dramatically with every Republican administration. Until 1993 or so, when it plunged during the Clinton administration.

Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.

[catallaxyfiles.com image 570x387]


No no - look - it says "Source: Census" right there! It's official.
 
2012-06-26 05:14:31 PM
"you just hate poor people and want them to STARVE!"

Yes, because if one is against GOVERNMENT doing a thing, then one must be against that thing altogether.

don't like the dept of education? You hate education and want people to be stupid.

don't like welfare checks? You hate poor people and want them to DIE!

how is that an argument?
 
2012-06-26 05:14:53 PM

Epoch_Zero: jigger: Job Creator: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x444]

Funny how the Great Society reforms resulted in the poverty rate plunging, it leveled off in 1979-1980, then rose dramatically with every Republican administration. Until 1993 or so, when it plunged during the Clinton administration.

Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.

[catallaxyfiles.com image 570x387]

No no - look - it says "Source: Census" right there! It's official.


wut?
 
2012-06-26 05:16:21 PM

jigger: Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.


Here is the source article, and its cited pretty well.

One thing I immediately noticed is that about 1/3 of it is Medicaid. Medicaid isn't exactly handing out money to more people. More like handing out money to poor people's doctors (and pharma and hoverround, etc).
 
2012-06-26 05:17:09 PM
Dammit, cut&paste this:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf
 
2012-06-26 05:19:15 PM

CanonicalNerd: jigger: Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.

Here is the source article, and its cited pretty well.

One thing I immediately noticed is that about 1/3 of it is Medicaid. Medicaid isn't exactly handing out money to more people. More like handing out money to poor people's doctors (and pharma and hoverround, etc).


Yeah, maybe you aren't familiar with the way fark handles quotes.
 
2012-06-26 05:23:47 PM

jigger: Yeah, maybe you aren't familiar with the way fark handles quotes.


Whoops. Sorry.
 
2012-06-26 05:23:50 PM
I'm I the only one noticing there are people in this thread arguing both the war on poverty has been a dismal failure AND we have the richest poor people in the world?
 
2012-06-26 05:25:09 PM

Aarontology: But the really ironic thing, and the funniest in my opinion, is that the teabaggers and republicans are complaining that there isn't enough socialism and redistribution of wealth in the Farm Bill in regards to "help" for farmers.


Heh.
 
2012-06-26 05:26:26 PM

Johnnyknox: "you just hate poor people and want them to STARVE!"

Yes, because if one is against GOVERNMENT doing a thing, then one must be against that thing altogether.

don't like the dept of education? You hate education and want people to be stupid.

don't like welfare checks? You hate poor people and want them to DIE!

how is that an argument?


When they point at someone's education as a bad thing. Or say poor people aren't poor.
 
2012-06-26 05:28:16 PM

downpaymentblues: I'm I the only one noticing there are people in this thread arguing both the war on poverty has been a dismal failure AND we have the richest poor people in the world?


Nope!
 
2012-06-26 05:37:19 PM

Giltric: Shvetz: You know what stimulates the economy?

[i.imgur.com image 635x389]



How much would 100% employment put back into the economy?

how do you get what you put into it, plus an extra .63 cents out of unemployment? What about food stamps? How do you get what you put into it plus an extra .74 cents out of food stamps?

Why not mandate 100% food stamp participation from the population and grow our economy by 174%?

Something tells me it doesn't work that way...why not?


Because you have to back up a step and realize that only about 30 cents of every tax dollar taken in for entitlement spending actually makes it to the recipient; the rest gets gobbled up by the machinery of government itself. So, multplying .3 by 1.8, you arrive at 54 cents worth of good. In other words, putting money into entitlement programs basically cuts it almost exactly in half.

This is why the leftists calling me disingenuous doesn't bother me. Not a one of them will acknowledge what I just said, and yet it is absolutely true.

All this being said, I'm still in favor of having some sort of social safety net; the graphic posted above showing the decline in poverty percentage among senior citizens shows one reason why. However, we simply have to do something to get perfectly healthy and capable people off the damn dole.

Both parties were responsible for pulling trillions of dollars out of the economy and giving it to the bankers, right before a major recession hit. (The first idiot to add "so vote Republican!" to that statement gets a strawman award.) Hard to have a robust economy when crap like that happens.
 
2012-06-26 05:38:24 PM

CanonicalNerd: Johnnyknox: "you just hate poor people and want them to STARVE!"

Yes, because if one is against GOVERNMENT doing a thing, then one must be against that thing altogether.

don't like the dept of education? You hate education and want people to be stupid.

don't like welfare checks? You hate poor people and want them to DIE!

how is that an argument?

When they point at someone's education as a bad thing. Or say poor people aren't poor.


If you propose dismantling public education, you don't want most people to get an education, except by charity and extreme good fortune. So yeah - you want people stupid, because you don't want most of them educated.

If you propose dismantling the social safety net, you think the suffering of people in poverty should not be alleviated, except by charity and extreme good fortune. So yeah - you want them to suffer, because help will not be provided for most of them.
 
2012-06-26 05:39:04 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Because you have to back up a step and realize that only about 30 cents of every tax dollar taken in for entitlement spending actually makes it to the recipient; the rest gets gobbled up by the machinery of government itself. So, multplying .3 by 1.8, you arrive at 54 cents worth of good. In other words, putting money into entitlement programs basically cuts it almost exactly in half.

This is why the leftists calling me disingenuous doesn't bother me. Not a one of them will acknowledge what I just said, and yet it is absolutely true.


Any citations for your "absolutely true" factoid?
 
2012-06-26 05:41:27 PM
Epoch_Zero:


That chart more or less reflects population density.
 
2012-06-26 05:42:00 PM

mat catastrophe: My reaction to the right-wing incorrectly labeling the center-right Democrats as "socialists" is to actually talk like a "communist".

It's the only way. If they can stretch the conversation that far to the right so that moderate liberal policies seem leftist, then you have to show them what leftism really means.


Hmmmmmm...
 
2012-06-26 05:44:19 PM

cchris_39: Epoch_Zero:


That chart more or less reflects population density.


Actually, you've yet to prove even the first contention you made upon posting in here today.

You have no proof that the Democratic Party's "goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts."

You need to retract this statement if you feel it is more than just your opinion.
 
2012-06-26 05:49:40 PM
discouraging out-of-wedlock births

The Cato Institute.
 
2012-06-26 05:50:19 PM

Job Creator:

1.bp.blogspot.com

Funny how the Great Society reforms resulted in the poverty rate plunging, it leveled off in 1979-1980, then rose dramatically with every Republican administration. Until 1993 or so, when it plunged during the Clinton administration.

Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.


Can you not read a graph? By the time the Great Society was under way, the levels had already fallen significantly. The first half of that huge slope was during JFK, who cut the top marginal tax rates during his adminstration. And the shaded area represents the end of the CARTER administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.
 
2012-06-26 05:50:24 PM

qorkfiend: SouthernFriedYankee: Because you have to back up a step and realize that only about 30 cents of every tax dollar taken in for entitlement spending actually makes it to the recipient; the rest gets gobbled up by the machinery of government itself. So, multplying .3 by 1.8, you arrive at 54 cents worth of good. In other words, putting money into entitlement programs basically cuts it almost exactly in half.

This is why the leftists calling me disingenuous doesn't bother me. Not a one of them will acknowledge what I just said, and yet it is absolutely true.

Any citations for your "absolutely true" factoid?


I will guess "no", because it's false; over 90 cents of every dollar for entitlements goes to beneficiaries.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-26 05:51:11 PM
just kick all the white people off of welfare
 
2012-06-26 06:02:17 PM

Epoch_Zero: FilmBELOH20: CanonicalNerd: cchris_39: The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.

Then why do the states who receive the most federal funds vote republican? Did their cunning plan backfire or did you just reguritate talk radio tripe without wanting to actually know the truth.

Quick - find the chart that shows where those funds go to those states. (Hint - you can't find it) North Dakota, for example, is always high on the list. What they tend to forget to mention is that there are two gigantic military bases, as well as about a third of the U.S. nuclear missiles spread around the state. Plus two major interstates used for trucking, an intermodel rail hub, and, yes, a lot of farms. There's also a national park, schools, etc - all of which are funded in some way by the government. When you have an entire state population of just over half a million people, and federal infrastructure along the lines of what I mentioned above - yeah, it's gonna cost more tax payer dollars in this state than it puts in. That's quite a bit different than comparing it to a welfare queen with 9 kids, 9 baby-daddies, and no job.

Then why is New York - which has many many more people and much and more infrastructure than North Dakota, not up there with Missisippi and North Dakota?

[farm3.static.flickr.com image 477x626]
A 2005 list - but it can't be that different in 2012.


Um, because math? If 20,000,000 people put in $1000 each in one area, and 500,000 people put in the same amount in another area, the figures are going to obviously skew that way regardless of how much federal spending is done there. Lots of the infrastructure on both places are local dollars, not federal. Now look at the difference between individuals on public assistance in both areas, as opposed to the "state" getting government money. Percentage wise, it seems to be higher in "blue" states than "red", but nobody wants to point that graph out.

Link
 
2012-06-26 06:07:24 PM
Conservative have been smart to morph the meaning of aid to the needy into one word, "Entitlement".
What's that all about? Entitlements in my mind aren't material things, they are liberty, justice and freedom. We are all entitled to those things. It's a marketing ploy to get people to start looking at safety nets as "nice to haves" and insinuating that the people that need it think they are "entitled" to what they like to call "hand outs".

Stigmatize an idea as something else to cast a shadow over it. Sound familiar?

Conservatives have this knee jerk reaction to throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead of doing the work to cut waste out of these programs without dismantling them, they take the easy way out and call it freedom and capitalism. Anybody against that must be a Socialist Marxist traitor.

Some of us see right through all of the Romney,s in the world.
We see your greed dressed up in your moral high ground.

I think it's great to be able to go out and make something of yourself and be successful and make a ton of money. But I ask, how far do the scales need to be tipped before before great wealth surpasses the progress of an enlightened society?

Is it really Just and the true American Way to turn our backs on the needy and suck the middle class dry while the uber wealthy sit back and do nothing but fight to continue the cycle?

I just don't offing get it.
 
2012-06-26 06:07:33 PM

cchris_39: Epoch_Zero:


That chart more or less reflects population density.


Your posts more or less reflect your mental density.
 
2012-06-26 06:10:42 PM
New International Version (©1984)
The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.
 
2012-06-26 06:11:20 PM

derpdeederp: Any thoughts on allowing private militaries to pick up the slack for reducing the US military?


From what I understand, that isn't working out too well. The contractors are mostly unscrupulous opportunists - for all the biatching about soldiers, most soldiers actually have princples and are honorable folks.

I think closing or dramatically scaling back the military bases all over the world, and no longer paying tons of money every year to defend countries that turn around and wage trade war on us via currency manipulation, sounds like a better idea.
 
2012-06-26 06:12:31 PM

James!: The War on Poverty is to Afganistan as the War on Drugs is to Iraq.


+ eleventy. And a cookie.
 
2012-06-26 06:13:48 PM
We have everything we need, on paper, in this country to completely eliminate poverty through legislation but two things would have to change. First, the wealthy would have to give up the idea that they can have a fleet of million dollar cars, private yachts, and a $100 million house for every day of the week. Second, the middle class has to give up the idea that the poor "don't deserve it". Change those two things and you can have your relative utopia. Personally, I'm not holding my breath given the culture we live in.

/At the end of the day, poverty exists because we want it too. Simple as that.
 
2012-06-26 06:15:29 PM

Giltric: Well the beauty of that is that in the United States you can go from living in your car to filthy rich overnight.

Even people with a popular website can find themselves worth 20 billion dollars after their company goes public.

When you compare a large sample size like the 99% and a small sample size like the top 1% any gains by that top 1% is going to skew the stats.



Where does America rank in upwards mobility? You might be surprised.
 
2012-06-26 06:16:39 PM
I actually want the GOP to win the Presidency and both houses. I want them to eliminate all programs and to repeal all laws the Democratic party ever passed.

I will be the first person to laugh loudly when the world falls apart and millions of people die overnight. I will point and laugh and I will say that I told you so. I will be the first person to convict in the public square all conservative ideology and all people who claim to own it. I'm betting that instead of conscientious persons, I will instead face a wall of crickets.

I will drag you all to prison, and you will die there.
 
2012-06-26 06:16:56 PM

smeegle: Conservative have been smart to morph the meaning of aid to the needy into one word, "Entitlement".
What's that all about? Entitlements in my mind aren't material things, they are liberty, justice and freedom. We are all entitled to those things. It's a marketing ploy to get people to start looking at safety nets as "nice to haves" and insinuating that the people that need it think they are "entitled" to what they like to call "hand outs".

Stigmatize an idea as something else to cast a shadow over it. Sound familiar?

Conservatives have this knee jerk reaction to throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead of doing the work to cut waste out of these programs without dismantling them, they take the easy way out and call it freedom and capitalism. Anybody against that must be a Socialist Marxist traitor.

Some of us see right through all of the Romney,s in the world.
We see your greed dressed up in your moral high ground.

I think it's great to be able to go out and make something of yourself and be successful and make a ton of money. But I ask, how far do the scales need to be tipped before before great wealth surpasses the progress of an enlightened society?

Is it really Just and the true American Way to turn our backs on the needy and suck the middle class dry while the uber wealthy sit back and do nothing but fight to continue the cycle?

I just don't offing get it.


icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-26 06:17:08 PM

cchris_39: The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.


Good luck, convincing the leftist folk here of this. But it's true, and it works so well that the GOP does it now too. The only time the GOP wants smaller government is when Democrats are in power, as we saw from 2001 - 2009. I believe the term us fiscally-minded people used was "spending like drunken sailors." But that might have been an insult to drunken sailors...
 
2012-06-26 06:18:43 PM

Fail in Human Form: At the end of the day, poverty exists because we want it too. Simple as that.


Agreed an in addition Capitalism as we know it would look different.
Personally, I think that there is no real pure form of any system. The mix varies with different degrees of socialist ideas thrown in. Socialism and Communism in their pure form, collapse.
I see todays GOP striving for pure Capitalism. I don't see that as a good idea.
 
2012-06-26 06:18:47 PM

coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.


Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.
 
2012-06-26 06:21:06 PM

derpdeederp: I believe the concept is to give the military money so we dont get attacked.



So America needs to keep raising military spending and nobody will attack? Interesting. Someone tell Bin Laden.
 
2012-06-26 06:21:14 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.


Actually, the least you could do is admit it happened during the Clinton Presidency and that he signed off on it.
 
2012-06-26 06:21:45 PM
jigger

Whatever, nice pussy tho.
 
2012-06-26 06:22:24 PM

James!: The War on Poverty is to Afganistan as the War on Drugs is to Iraq.


So the war on drugs is over and the war on poverty will never end?
 
2012-06-26 06:24:16 PM

FilmBELOH20: Quick - find the chart that shows where those funds go to those states. (Hint - you can't find it) North Dakota, for example, is always high on the list. What they tend to forget to mention is that there are two gigantic military bases, as well as about a third of the U.S. nuclear missiles spread around the state. Plus two major interstates used for trucking, an intermodel rail hub, and, yes, a lot of farms. There's also a national park, schools, etc - all of which are funded in some way by the government. When you have an entire state population of just over half a million people, and federal infrastructure along the lines of what I mentioned above - yeah, it's gonna cost more tax payer dollars in this state than it puts in. That's quite a bit different than comparing it to a welfare queen with 9 kids, 9 baby-daddies, and no job.



So the only thing between you being that welfare queen with 9 kids, 9 baby-daddies, and no job, is massive government spending on your state. At least you're honest you rely on the government even more than someone receiving a few hundred dollars a month.

/I do like the racist shot you took at welfare queens
 
2012-06-26 06:26:57 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: And the shaded area represents the end of the CARTER administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.



No, the shades show a recession, idiot.
 
2012-06-26 06:27:26 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: mat catastrophe: My reaction to the right-wing incorrectly labeling the center-right Democrats as "socialists" is to actually talk like a "communist".

It's the only way. If they can stretch the conversation that far to the right so that moderate liberal policies seem leftist, then you have to show them what leftism really means.

Hmmmmmm...


Yes, that was a touching start but it left untouched the actual system by which those leeches "make" their money.
 
2012-06-26 06:31:18 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.

One of the stated objectives of The Great Society was the elimination of poverty.


Before Social Security, almost half of elderly Americans had income below the poverty line. Today, only about ten percent of the elderly have incomes below the poverty line.

It appears to be working.
 
2012-06-26 06:31:34 PM

qorkfiend: SouthernFriedYankee: Because you have to back up a step and realize that only about 30 cents of every tax dollar taken in for entitlement spending actually makes it to the recipient; the rest gets gobbled up by the machinery of government itself. So, multplying .3 by 1.8, you arrive at 54 cents worth of good. In other words, putting money into entitlement programs basically cuts it almost exactly in half.

This is why the leftists calling me disingenuous doesn't bother me. Not a one of them will acknowledge what I just said, and yet it is absolutely true.

Any citations for your "absolutely true" factoid?


Link
 
2012-06-26 06:32:21 PM

bulldg4life: I would assume we would need to develop better education programs to prepare people for the real world instead of driving student loans and higher education to levels that only the upper middle-class can survive. We probably need to stop shipping low-level jobs overseas to give the blue collar worker opportunities that just aren't there anymore. And, we'll need to reform the health care system to prevent crushing debt that can destroy families and cripple growth.

Or, I guess, we get rid of welfare and hope for the best.


But this is AMERICA! We must treat welfare programs as we do our economy, thus if there is no direct ROI, then fark those poor bastards.
 
2012-06-26 06:32:40 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.


TANF/AFDC recipients FY 2000: 742,263 (End of Clinton Administration)

TANF recipients, FY 2007: 3,960,907 (End of Bush Administration)

Source: US Dept of Health & Human Services Link

Welfare was reformed under Clinton, and less people were on it.
 
2012-06-26 06:32:59 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Can you not read a graph? By the time the Great Society was under way, the levels had already fallen significantly. The first half of that huge slope was during JFK, who cut the top marginal tax rates during his adminstration. And the shaded area represents the end of the CARTER administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.


Kennedy's tax cuts were mostly demand side:

Link
 
2012-06-26 06:36:12 PM

smeegle: Fail in Human Form: At the end of the day, poverty exists because we want it too. Simple as that.

Agreed an in addition Capitalism as we know it would look different.
Personally, I think that there is no real pure form of any system. The mix varies with different degrees of socialist ideas thrown in. Socialism and Communism in their pure form, collapse.
I see todays GOP striving for pure Capitalism. I don't see that as a good idea.


Me either.
 
2012-06-26 06:38:15 PM

whidbey: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.

Actually, the least you could do is admit it happened during the Clinton Presidency and that he signed off on it.


I do, and he did. But he vetoed it twice first, and only signed it after his advisors told him he wouldn't get re-elected unless he did so.
 
2012-06-26 06:40:18 PM

intelligent comment below: SouthernFriedYankee: And the shaded area represents the end of the CARTER administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.


No, the shades show a recession, idiot.


MY. POINT.

One started under Carter, the other under HW Bush. "B-b-b-but Reagan!!"
 
2012-06-26 06:40:43 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: qorkfiend: SouthernFriedYankee: Because you have to back up a step and realize that only about 30 cents of every tax dollar taken in for entitlement spending actually makes it to the recipient; the rest gets gobbled up by the machinery of government itself. So, multplying .3 by 1.8, you arrive at 54 cents worth of good. In other words, putting money into entitlement programs basically cuts it almost exactly in half.

This is why the leftists calling me disingenuous doesn't bother me. Not a one of them will acknowledge what I just said, and yet it is absolutely true.

Any citations for your "absolutely true" factoid?

Link

http://libertariananswers.com/is-private-charity-more-efficient-than- g overnment-welfare/


Not sure if serious
 
Displayed 50 of 413 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report