Hey conservatives, THIS is what you support???

[Minister of Truth]

Should I be?

 

[Bfgrn]

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/09/us-poverty-rate-1959-to-2009.html

So, in other words, we have spent how much money and not seen ANY reduction in the poverty rate?

Thanks for the PROOF...

During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Thanks for the PROOF...

During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)

LMAO.... try learning to read a chart moron. The poverty rate was plunging long before Johnson ever started the war on poverty. The poverty rate then stuck between 12-14%, spiking with each recession the country went through. As the economy improved after each recession, the poverty rate also improved as it naturally would. Johnson's programs have done NOTHING to reduce the poverty rate in this country moron. Take a look at that chart again.... the poverty rate at the end of 2009 is right where it was when Johnson's war on poverty began.

 

[Bfgrn]

LMAO.... try learning to read a chart moron. The poverty rate was plunging long before Johnson ever started the war on poverty. The poverty rate then stuck between 12-14%, spiking with each recession the country went through. As the economy improved after each recession, the poverty rate also improved as it naturally would. Johnson's programs have done NOTHING to reduce the poverty rate in this country moron. Take a look at that chart again.... the poverty rate at the end of 2009 is right where it was when Johnson's war on poverty began.

I guess chart reading is not something you were taught...I will give you a 'hint'...work from left to right. A downward line signifies a DEcrease in poverty. NOW, look up the year starting point of Johnson's War on Poverty and Clinton's administration. If the lines goes DOWN to the LEFT of those dates, it signifies a DEcrease in poverty.

NOW...provide me with a chart that would show poverty if those programs never existed??? I know pea brain right wingers can't assimilate those 'concepts'

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Very true. That's what I'm getting at. They have for so many years touted themselves as the champion of the poor, the minority, they downtrodden, but their policies have done nothing but put salt in the wound. They have touted gay rights at the expense of the moral fiber of this nation,

I wonder if the poor, the minorities, or the downtrodden share your assessment.


Please explain - with examples - how "gay rights" have undermined the moral fiber of this nation.

have touted free speech for all at the expense of our morals and values,

Is free speech for all contrary to "our" morals and values? Explain, please.

give money like it's going out of style but want to tax everyone to death (and in death),

Got any figures to support these assertions?


Have you compared today's effective tax rates with the tax rates under Bush?

and, while they say the Repubs love the rich people, the rich is all the Dems pander to for their campaign funds.

Examples, please? A comparative campaign contribution website with a by-party breakdown would probably help.

I was raised in a middle class Democrat home. I wised up when I went to college, and I see why my family was stuck where it was. My grandmother worked her butt off, but my mom was dependent on the government for nearly everything (I remember government cheese lol). I wised up and got several degrees, spent some time in the US Army as an artillery officer,

Did you get any government help obtaining those degrees? Were the schools subsidized with public funds? Just askin'.



Being in the military or being a veteran means you're not dependent on the government?

and now work my butt off to feed my family. The degrees help, but one must make a difference on his or her own, not by allowing the government to foot their bills. The Dems have put an entitlement attitude into the minds of so many people; they've created a monster, one I don't see going away for some time.

I'd like to see some verifiable evidence of your points, if you can provide it.


I also wonder if you voiced any of these anguished concerns about growing government between 2001 and January 2009.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I guess chart reading is not something you were taught...I will give you a 'hint'...work from left to right. A downward line signifies a DEcrease in poverty. NOW, look up the year starting point of Johnson's War on Poverty and Clinton's administration. If the lines goes DOWN to the LEFT of those dates, it signifies a DEcrease in poverty.

AS I stated and you ignored like the good little lemming that you are.... The poverty rate was declining from 22% down to 15% when Johnson's 'war' began. SINCE that time, (note, not cherry picking like you) the poverty rate has gone up and down in a RANGE based on ECONOMIC conditions. Not on anything done in Johnsons 'war'.

Or do you really think that the plunging poverty rate PRIOR to Johnson's 'war' was somehow due Johnson? Or is it more realistic to state that the decline continued on the track it was already on until the next recession?

I also can't help but notice in your cherry picking of times when the poverty rate declined, you forgot to mention Reagan. I wonder why?

I also can't help but notice that you ALSO IGNORE the FACT that the poverty rate today is where it was when the 'war' began. Why is that moron? Could it be because you are scared to face the FACT that the 'war' did nothing to address poverty? That, as critics of Johnson's 'war' stated long ago, that it is economic growth NOT government interference that determines the poverty rate?

Why is the poverty rate rising under Obama? I wonder?

NOW...provide me with a chart that would show poverty if those programs never existed??? I know pea brain right wingers can't assimilate those 'concepts'

More stupidity from you. It is impossible to show you 'what might have been'. You fucking idiot.

 

[The Dude]

this is the kind of shit bfged would have learned had he gone to college. Guarantee you he got the chart from a libtard site and strayed from the game plan on years. ie. Johnson was not pres in 59 right

 

[cawacko]

Johnson first introduced the concept of the War on Poverty in '64 and some legislation was passed in late '64 and '65. According to the chart posted we are at the same poverty rate today as we were in '65 and '66 when the programs would have started to take effect.

And regarding Bill Clinton didn't some people predict his Welfare Reform Act would send thousands or millions of people back into poverty or onto the street?

 

[Bfgrn]

AS I stated and you ignored like the good little lemming that you are.... The poverty rate was declining from 22% down to 15% when Johnson's 'war' began. SINCE that time, (note, not cherry picking like you) the poverty rate has gone up and down in a RANGE based on ECONOMIC conditions. Not on anything done in Johnsons 'war'.

Or do you really think that the plunging poverty rate PRIOR to Johnson's 'war' was somehow due Johnson? Or is it more realistic to state that the decline continued on the track it was already on until the next recession?

I also can't help but notice in your cherry picking of times when the poverty rate declined, you forgot to mention Reagan. I wonder why?

I also can't help but notice that you ALSO IGNORE the FACT that the poverty rate today is where it was when the 'war' began. Why is that moron? Could it be because you are scared to face the FACT that the 'war' did nothing to address poverty? That, as critics of Johnson's 'war' stated long ago, that it is economic growth NOT government interference that determines the poverty rate?

Why is the poverty rate rising under Obama? I wonder?



More stupidity from you. It is impossible to show you 'what might have been'. You fucking idiot.

Poverty statistics were never kept prior to 1960. But, I am sure what the chart reflects prior to Johnson's BRIEF War on Poverty is due of a strong economy bolstered by the New Deal.

The War on Poverty was a HUGE success, and conservatives have tried ever since to say it wasn't...because they have their own 'remedy'...the liberal era ended with the Great Society brought on by assassinations, the Vietnam War and a splintered Democratic Party, just as John Kenneth Galbraith warned JFK, who was going to withdraw by 1965.

Liberals boarded Bobby Kennedy's funeral train never to be seen again, and the splintering handed Nixon the 1968 election...

THEN, conservatives could address poverty THEIR way.

The Conservative 'NANNY State' @ $35,000 per inmate annually...

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

 

[The Dude]

Johnson first introduced the concept of the War on Poverty in '64 and some legislation was passed in late '64 and '65. According to the chart posted we are at the same poverty rate today as we were in '65 and '66 when the programs would have started to take effect.

And regarding Bill Clinton didn't some people predict his Welfare Reform Act would send thousands or millions of people back into poverty or onto the street?

Nice BFGED burn

I would like to add this. Poverty is a calculation of a percentage times the median income.
So as income goes up the poverty level goes up.
Todays poverty line has families with multiple cars, tv, ac, and lots are obese.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey lady...get off your lazy ass and get a fucking job! Mc Donalds is hiring...

I'll have a Big Mac and a Coke...can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

 

[The Dude]

BFGED please explain how being at the same % now as when the war started is a huge reduction.

P.S. nice changing the topic after SF burned your ass on not being able to read a chart.

 

[Tags]

Thanks for the PROOF...

During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)

There is an interesting correlation here. Poverty rates started to rise right at the end of Carter's term through Reagans first term, probably due to a recession. Then it drops down until Bush Sr takes office. The Clinton years are consistently decreasing while the Bush Jr years do the opposite.

Moral of the story: Americans against poverty oppose candidates named Bush.

Thats about what this chart is worth.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

There is an interesting correlation here. Poverty rates started to rise right at the end of Carter's term through Reagans first term, probably due to a recession. Then it drops down until Bush Sr takes office. The Clinton years are consistently decreasing while the Bush Jr years do the opposite.

Moral of the story: Americans against poverty oppose candidates named Bush.

Thats about what this chart is worth.

Take a closer look... recession of 80/81, recession of 90/91, recession of 2000-2002, recession of 2008-present.....

Poverty is a direct result (obviously) of economic growth or lack thereof. THAT is what the chart shows.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Poverty statistics were never kept prior to 1960. But, I am sure what the chart reflects prior to Johnson's BRIEF War on Poverty is due of a strong economy bolstered by the New Deal.

LMAO.... I am sure it was indeed due to the strong economy. Which is exactly what I stated.... thanks for agreeing with me that Johnson's 'war on poverty' was just as 'successful' as his war in Viet Nam.

The War on Poverty was a HUGE success, and conservatives have tried ever since to say it wasn't...because they have their own 'remedy'...the liberal era ended with the Great Society brought on by assassinations, the Vietnam War and a splintered Democratic Party, just as John Kenneth Galbraith warned JFK, who was going to withdraw by 1965.

So, to you, a 'huge success' is something that does NOTHING. No wonder you like Obama so much.

Liberals boarded Bobby Kennedy's funeral train never to be seen again, and the splintering handed Nixon the 1968 election...

THEN, conservatives could address poverty THEIR way.

So now you credit the decline during Reagan and Clinton's terms as CONSERVATIVE victories? Well, ok.

So now you are switching topics? Going from the failed war on poverty to the failed war on drugs are you?

 

[Bfgrn]

BFGED please explain how being at the same % now as when the war started is a huge reduction.

P.S. nice changing the topic after SF burned your ass on not being able to read a chart.

Is Johnson still president? Is Sargent Shriver still running the Office of Economic Opportunity?

So YOU can provide me with a chart that shows what poverty would have looked like without those programs...I guess THAT is what a college education can do...

I am anxious to see that chart.

I do know that Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty, and increased their life expectancy significantly. Before Medicare senior citizens were the MOST likely citizens to end up in poverty, now they represent about 10%.

You being a college guy, maybe YOU can read this article and explain it to me. Because it sounds like some GOOD things happen because of these programs to me, but YOU would know, you're the guy that can provide the chart showing what America would look like without social programs...

Public Benefits: Easing Poverty and Ensuring Medical Coverage

When individuals and families experience crises such as job loss, illness, disability, or divorce, they may face the prospect of falling into poverty (or becoming poorer) and losing health insurance coverage. Various government assistance programs are designed to lessen these hardships. These programs also provide support when families work but have low earnings and when people reach retirement age.

An examination of Census data shows that as a whole, the U.S. public benefits system, sometimes referred to as the “safety net,” has the following effects on poverty and health insurance status.

It cuts the number of Americans living in poverty almost in half. (As discussed later, the Census data used here understate the degree to which public benefits ease poverty.)
It reduces the severity of poverty for those who remain poor. Without these programs, these families would have average disposable income equal to 29 percent of the poverty line. With the programs, their average income rises to 57 percent of the poverty line.
It provides health care coverage to tens of millions of individuals who otherwise would be uninsured.

There are two principal categories of public benefit programs — those that provide benefits regardless of income and those that limit assistance to people with low or modest incomes. The first category of programs includes the major social insurance programs such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, and Medicare. Programs in the second category are often referred to as “means-tested” programs.

Means-tested programs play a large role in reducing the extent and severity of poverty and providing health care to low-income Americans. Some 11 million low-income Americans are lifted above the poverty line by means-tested benefits, and more than 55 million receive health insurance from the means-tested medical programs, Medicaid and SCHIP. Most of these people would otherwise be uninsured.

 

[The Dude]

so you put a chart up that shows no improvement not me. nice dodging though

How about this one BFGED, why are you not rich after a long career with the evil caterpillar?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Is Johnson still president? Is Sargent Shriver still running the Office of Economic Opportunity?

LMAO.... no moron, they (like your failed point) are DEAD.

So YOU can provide me with a chart that shows what poverty would have looked like without those programs...I guess THAT is what a college education can do...

You truly are a fucking retard. Asking for a chart that shows 'what might have been'??? Sure... tell ya what, why don't you show a chart with the data to back it up that shows what would have happened if liberals had run this country for the past 100 years as you would have liked them to.

 

[Tags]

Take a closer look... recession of 80/81, recession of 90/91, recession of 2000-2002, recession of 2008-present.....

Poverty is a direct result (obviously) of economic growth or lack thereof. THAT is what the chart shows.

Of course poverty increases in a recession, but I that's not what the chart reveals. Alone, it doesn't reveal anything, which was my point. I was being facetious when I said opposing candidates named Bush. It was supposed to be absurd. You killed the joke though. I guess it was a good thing it wasn't very funny in the first place.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Chronology of the Posts FTW!!