isadore;1162637 wrote:that just doesn't add up. But I see your figures demonstrate almost no waste or fraud in the programs.

Apparently we need to take math knowledge from the rich and give it to the poor.

BGFalcons82;1162634 wrote:What's the matter...your Google button broken?

In inflation-adjusted numbers, it's over $16,000,000,000,000 per this 2010 article: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229326/losing-war/robert-rector#

In 2009, it was just under $16,000,000,000,000 per Real Clear Politics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/22/quite_a_poor_way_to_help_the_poor_98404.html

Listen, I'm not going to write a term paper for you. The fact of the matter is that after 48 years of wealth confiscation and re-distribution, the War On Poverty is a loser. The poverty statistics are virtually the same. The ethics and moral statistics are arguably worse, but that's another topic. So what return have we gained? What did we get for our "investment" (the statist's new catchword)? Since the War is lost, what should we do next? Take more from the makers and give it to the takers? Double-down on losing?

Tell us what we should do to eliminate poverty.

what we had was a declining commitment that is reflected in the declining real value of welfare payment. Of course when you are in a Great Recession welfare payment will rise as an increasing number of people need aid. But what we can see is that over the years the commitment to fight povery strangely as the war was starting to be won.

If you study the the graphs you can see in the period from1965 to 1975 as welfare payments rose inreal value, poverty declined, but astheir real value declined, poverty decline first plateaued then rose.
We started a retreat from the War on Poverty along time ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif

BGFalcons82;1162557 wrote:Over $5,000,000,000,000 has been spent in 48 years since LBJ announced the "War On Poverty". Seeing as how the government can't create any wealth, that means they had to take it from others. If their cut is 33%, and I'm being very conservative here, then they have removed $7,500,000,000,000 out of the economy from taxpaying citizens to make sure no one lives in poverty. A $7.5 trillion wealth transfer and the statistics you quoted are nearly the same as they were 48 years ago. In other words, the War On Poverty is a proven abject failure, and yet you, and many millions of others, say not enough has been spent. Not enough has been taken from the makers. Not enough has gone to the right people. Not enough. Not FAIR enough.

At what point would you recommend a different tack?

Reps.

To answer the last question, the left will be satisfied only when the top 50% of wage earners have the same lifestyle as the bottom 50%.

In other words, never. As long as one person has one dime more than someone else, individual liberty and personal responsibility must be sacrificed for the sake of handing over power to a centralized government.

BGFalcons82;1162634 wrote: Since the War is lost, what should we do next? Take more from the makers and give it to the takers? Double-down on losing?

This is surprising? What is a vote for Obama if not doubling-down on a loser?

To recap, under Obama:

• Private sector jobs: Up by 35 thousand
• Public sector jobs: Down 608 thousand
• Stock market: Up by 64%

And under Bush:

• Private sector jobs: Down by 646 thousand
• Public sector jobs: Up by 1.7 million
• Stock market: Down 24%

Under Bush, the Dow dropped from 10,578 to 7,949—a 24 percent decrease. Under Obama, it's gone from 7,949 to 13,045, a 64 percent increase.

I saw this chart graph floating around the liberal blogs today in response to the job numbers.

Apparently the new plan is to cast the Messiah as a raging capitalist.

IggyPride00;1162768 wrote:I saw this chart graph floating around the liberal blogs today in response to the job numbers.

Apparently the new plan is to cast the Messiah as a raging capitalist.

Apparently there's some fuzzy math going on somewhere, because I've also seen numbers that the total number of jobs is down under Obama by 2M. Which is about 1.5M more than this claims with Obama.

I mean, the jobs report says(?) the US has recovered only about 4M out of 8.8M jobs lost since the peak in 2008. So where's the some 3-4M gap not accounted for in the Obama spin? The number that have left the workforce, maybe?

gut;1162828 wrote:Apparently there's some fuzzy math going on somewhere, because I've also seen numbers that the total number of jobs is down under Obama by 2M. Which is about 1.5M more than this claims with Obama.

I mean, the jobs report says(?) the US has recovered only about 4M out of 8.8M jobs lost since the peak in 2008. So where's the some 3-4M gap not accounted for in the Obama spin? The number that have left the workforce, maybe?

The Obama count I don't think starts until late January when he was inaugurated. We were hemorraging jobs at a rate of about 700,000 a month, so there were about 2 million lost between november when he was elected and January 20th when he was sworn in that don't go on his record when they do that accounting. See the graph.

That is where they come up with those numbers I think, which makes sense because until you are sworn in the ticker doesn't start.

IggyPride00;1162832 wrote: That is where they come up with those numbers I think, which makes sense because until you are sworn in the ticker doesn't start.

Yeah, that looks about right. Of course, the internet bubble burst right before Bush took office. And what we had was largely a jobless recovery, then the Great Recession at the end. It's a convenient spin to pretend that there's no responsibility to recover job losses from a recession (the economy will do most of that on its own, and it simply hasn't). It's Bush's fault again, as if those are permanent job losses that Obama can't and shouldn't be expected to regain. Gotta keep lowering the bar to prop up Obama, and might even be past the point where you have to dig a ditch before you can lower the bar any further.

I think it might backfire when you try to pat yourself on the back for jobs while some 4-5M people are still out of work, most of those the poor/uneducated that make-up Obama's base. Of course, he's written trillion dollar checks he can't cash to that base, but Isadore tells us it's not nearly enough.

such selective memories
Bush tax cuts
+an phony monetary policy
+Bush deregulation=
Great Recession
Which Obama has been digging us out of.

isadore;1162877 wrote: Which Obama has been digging us out of.

Not really, and not without putting Bush's "phony monetary policy" on steroids. He's dug us deeper to the tune of of about $6T. TARP help stabilize things and the GM bailout was just waiting for his signature. A recovery was going to begin at that point, but it's been slow and dogged by a very real Obama/deficit overhang in business and investing.

Notice I did not call it the Bush monetary policy. Bush deserves some of the blame because of his appointments to the FED. But the major blame for the disastrous monetary policy goes to chairman Alan Greenspan, the randite, who did his bit to cause the housing boom and to deprive Bernanke, his successor of the monetary tools to fight the Great Recession. With the auto bailout the man who signs the law gets the praise or condemnation. The condemnation came from Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney and the whole Republican presidential candidate field. The day Obama took office the economy was still in the midst of a greatest cataclysmic fall in 70 years. To just bring it to a halt to plateau it took time.