The war on poverty was a failure.

And how do you arrive at that from my simply asking someone what subsidies they are talking about?

You mean was TARP a subsidy? No, it was a series of bridge loans that were paid back with interest.

Not necessarily and certainly not "welfare". If the government pays for part on an interest rate, that is a subsidy. But a loan guaranty is not a subsidy at least not in the direct sense of a subsidy and certainly not "welfare" which is a direct payment to some entity.

But I am all for ending all subsidies how about you?

 

The phase War on Poverty was predominately introduced in LBJ's 1964 State of the Union Address and it was far more inclusive than just addressing welfare assistance. In fact it was unrelated to the actual welfare assistance that wouldn't be required if the War on Poverty was actually waged until it's conclusion.

The "War on Poverty" was about civil rights and it included improved education for the poor that were predominately black that would translate into equality of opportunity. We have succeeded in improving education for African-Americans where they're currently almost at parity with whites and where ten times as many African-Americans are now attending college but that has not translated into equality of economic opportunity.

So we've eliminated explicit government discrimination under the law and African-Americans are achieving educational parity with whites but that has not resulted in a change in their economic status. The "government" has succeeded in the War on Poverty but America has not and it's all because it's WASP prejudice in employment that is preventing the economic parity for African-Americans. Our government cannot legislate against individual racial prejudice which is why the War on Poverty has yet to succeed. We have 56% of the American population that express anti-black racial prejudice and that is actually on the increase in America. While it crosses all political ideologies explicit racial prejudice is twice as high among Republicans when compared to Democrats.

I find it ironic that Republicans, where 8 out of 10 express explicit anti-black racial prejudice, often state that government can't solve all of America's problems and that is accurate especially when it comes to the War on Poverty. It will take the American People to finally win that war by ending racial prejudice.

The government has done well in the War on Poverty since 1964 but until the American People step up and end racial prejudice and discrimination the government will still have to provide welfare assistance to mitigate the effects of the poverty being created by discrimination by the American People.

Want to do something to help end welfare assistance by government? End individual racial prejudice and discrimination that creates poverty.

 

"...we've eliminated explicit government discrimination under the law..."

Taxcutter says:
No. Only the targets were changed. Segregated schools were replaced with Affirmative Action.


"The "government" has succeeded in the War on Poverty..."

Taxcutter says:
It has gotten bigger due to the "War on Poverty."

 

Not all the corporate welfare queens are to be found in the nuclear energy business by any means. Their free catastrophic insurance from the government is a unique perquisite but, otherwise, they chow down on the same taxpayer subsidies at the public trough as their fellow royals and expect to escape the cost of doing business by forcing the taxpayer to clean up after them - a costly proposition at best.

 

Did Walmart start that way? Facebook? Sears? Publix? Microsoft? Dell? Roku? Google?

Without BIG government though workers could maybe keep enough of their pay to invest a little.

 

The bluest Districts are where African Americans suffer the most. Are their schools bad because democrats are racist? Their streets unsafe ..etc..etc... Because democrats are racists? Or if anything goes wrong in their all democrat run cities it is because of racist republicans who arent in power where they live?

 

would we need as much corporate welfare if real persons in our republic could no longer claim to be in (official) poverty in our republic?

 

Since there is no real denial that LBJ's "War on Poverty" isn't working - just attempts to change the subject - what possible rationale can be offered to continue with an obvious failure like this?

 

I don't know what you are talking about, the “war on poverty” did exactly what it was supposed to do, and it is still working like magic. The war on poverty was designed to buy peace from the poor, so that the rich could keep more of the unearned wealth they capture via economic rents, and make the middle pay for that peace. The “War on Poverty' is working brilliantly … the rich have never been richer.

 

Be more specific. Exactly what do you consider a failure? Exactly what do you wish to discontinue?

 

LOL! Your naivete is touching. What actually happens is that profits made in the USA are transferred to subsidiaries "operating" in tax havens using dishonest input pricing, where they are UNtaxed. Too bad for your beliefs, but corporate accountants are a lot smarter than you.

 

AFAICT, they just get the greediest of their rich country club pals who will give them the required quid pro quos. "I'm on your board, and voted to give you a billion, so you use your vote on my board to vote me a billion." These people couldn't care less if the company is ruined, as long as they get their billions for ruining it. Didn't the GFC teach you anything?

Right, but it's the STOCK MARKET'S performance their pay is tied to, not THEIR performance. 75% of stock price variance is due to the market trend, 5% to the sector trend, leaving just 20% to be accounted for by anything that is actually happening at the company -- for which the CEO bears only a small portion of the responsibility. CEOs are not paid for their performance, but for warming their seats while the Fed kites the stock market for them.

Anecdotes don't cut it. How is it that statistically, CEO pay is unrelated to corporate performance?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/02/focus-0

The greed of the leftist is to the greed of the rightist as the brightness of the moon is to the brightness of the sun.

They aren't in the rich guys' club. The don't have rich friends on corporate boards voting to give them billions for doing nothing. Duh.

LOL! The whole point of owning rent seeking privileges is that competition doesn't work.

 

They are already doing so. Duh.

No, he does not.

Because neither Obama nor any of his predecessors HAS been doing any stuff I would like.

As dead as Republican ones? Naaaahhh...

 

That is exactly how.

I rest my case. TARP enabled corporations to dispose of crap assets without taking a bath. That many of the loans -- not all -- have been repaid with interest is irrelevant: in many cases government has given them the money with which to repay the loans.

Yes, necessarily, and it is definitely welfare.

A loan guarantee is definitely a subsidy, because it enables the borrower to get a lower interest rate by shifting the risk onto taxpayers.

No, you're not. You demand that the welfare subsidy giveaways to the rich and privileged at the expense of the honest and productive be continued. We have already established that.

I am definitely against subsidies, especially to rich, greedy takers.

 

LOL - The reason that they're "blue" districts is because of the anti-black racial agenda of Republicans. If Republicans had anything to offer to the minorities living in these cities then they wouldn't elect Democrats. Why would they elect a Republican that would make their situation worse?

But then overall statistical analysis is based upon the entire United States and not limited to "blue" or "red" cities.

Of course we know from studies that many Democrats have explicit anti-black racial prejudice that leads to discrimination. The most recent study puts that at 32% and that is a serious problem that Democrats need to address. No one disputes that. While I've not found any specific study for libertarians (that I would like to see) I would estimate that about 50% of libertarians express anti-black racial prejudice which is a concern for me as a libertarian. Republicans have their own problem with 79% expressing explicit anti-black racial prejudice.

The problem runs across all party lines and it is a problem that Americans must face as individuals because it's not something our government can fix. Until that problem is solved we can't win the War on Poverty because discrimination is a predominate factor in creating poverty in the United States. When we fix that problem then the requirement to mitigate the effects of the poverty will greatly diminish.

 

" Exactly what do you consider a failure?"

Taxcutter says:
All of it. there is probably more abject poverty today than in 1964.



" Exactly what do you wish to discontinue?"

Taxcutter says:
Every statute enacted under the banner of the "War on Poverty."

 

How many Dems are paternalistic?

But really, blaming everything on racism is ridiculous. The areas the suffer the most in are controlled by them. Lefterism is what is killing that community. More employment of black youth under Jim Crow then now. Because of racism I assume?

 

Name one?

 

All poverty measures passed during Johnson's term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:N...Poverty_Rate_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG


The
Economic Opportunity Act
Office of Economic
Opportunity (OEO), the Job Corps
Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA),
Upward Bound,
Head Start,
the Neighborhood Youth Corps,
Community Action Program (CAP),
the college Work Study program,
Neighborhood Development Centers,
small business loan programs,
, the Food Stamp Act (1964),
the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (1965),

the Higher Education Act (1965- when did college education costs start to spike again? Silly libs)

the Social Security amendments creating Medicare/Medicaid (1965), the creation of the Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (1965), the Model Cities Act (1966),
the Fair Housing Act (196,

etc...

taken from:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/sixties/readings/War on Poverty entry Poverty Encyclopedia.pdf

 

Thank-you.

Taxcutter, is there anything on that list you would spare?

 

"Taxcutter, is there anything on that list you would spare?"

Taxcutter says:
Can't see any. Reason: They didn't work.

 

I am sure he will say "can you throw in the new deal too?"

 

So a higher number of people in poverty was how it was supposed to work?

- - - Updated - - -

If they are made here then the taxes are paid here, your ignorance is amusing.

 

Non-answer noted.

Fannie and Freddie bought the "crap assets" and they have been paid back with interest and you have no idea what a subsidy or welfare are.

Nope.

Nope if is a loan guaranty.

A loan guaranty, if they were given a subsidy they wouldn't need a loan, they'd have cash in hand.

I demand nothing of the sort, had my way we'd have a national sales tax and the government would be out of the business of injecting itself into the markets at all.

What has it cost you and be specific.

YOU have established nothing.

So you want to end subsidies to universities, NPR, welfare, EITC, et al?

 

Of course. The landed aristocracy that runs things knows where the money goes, even if you don't.

As I said, your naivete is touching in this cynical age.