[rpeerless]

Just read that 16 trillion has been spent since the "War on Poverty" began in the sixties with a current estimated 47 million people that are poverty in the USA.
How could so many people be at poverty level today with 16 trillion spent?

 

[hmb]

You have to use the new math. HMB

 

[Chichay]

The "War on Poverty" began during the Johnson administration; some fifty years ago. The dollars spent, $16 trillion, is fairly accurate, but the people it went to is open to debate. The money is spent on a constantly changing population, and I do not know if anybody knows how much money actually goes to the poor and how much is spent on "administration". Government is the poster child of "inefficiency". Suffice it to say, that the poor is not the only beneficiary of this program. I think you get the gist.

 

[wireguy]

What Chichay says. The war on poverty is one of the most utterly evil, diabolical ideas ever to spring from the minds of evil men. How many lives have been diminished and destroyed through this monstrosity, which is utterly contrary to human nature and what works best for mankind in the real world, which is teaching men to fish as opposed to giving them a fish.

 

[crusha]

Nope, it's not about teaching men to fish...but it sure does a nice job of ensuring permanent employment (and pension) for the person who hands out the fish.

 

[BT-100dc]

We're headed for most of the middle class being in poverty due to declining wages & jobs, effects of Obamacare, an anti-business Administration and unchecked entitlements such as Food Stamps. The "New Normal" is here. BT100dc

 

[CharlieAMA]

Old Math- You take from the rich and give to the poor. The poor use this money to buy clothes, food, go to college, get a degree, and a better job, with nicer house and car, and live happily ever after.



New Math-You take from the rich and give to the poor. The poor use this money for drugs, tatooes, piercings, wild hair-dos, new fancy wheels for their cars, hydraulic suspension for their cars, motorcycles, other gang related pocessions, and live happily ever after.

 

[StonewallRacing]

Good one Charlie!

SW

 

[rpeerless]

Still trying to figure out how much went to one individual over the course of fifty years or is it several different individuals over the course of fifty years. Did anyone work their way out of poverty on these programs besides the administrators?
That is just an incredible amount of money considering the poor in the sixties were mostly in the southern states and mega cities - low rent districts.

 

[GW22]

In all reality, very few people in this country even know what "poverty" really is. I learned this while travelling in Mexico, Puerto Rico and China. The average "poor" person in the United States spends more on beer and cigarettes than 1/3 of the people on earth earn. Show me 10 American adults age 20-45 who are on welfare and I'll show you six or seven who have a car, an iPhone/Droid and a flat screen TV fed by cable or satellite. Most poverty in this country which isn't related to substance abuse or mental illness is among the eldery who are too proud to ask for help.

-Gary

 

[cbxchris]

WE simply paid for several generations of worthless POS's breed......
.nothing else.

 

[Catpower]

Charlie naled it square on the head

 

[rpeerless]

Yes, but Charlie left out the designer clothes, shoes, handbags, home furnishings, finger nails, purebred pooches and top of the line eats in the poor purchases, hot or not.

 

[CharlieAMA]

Well, I was trying to keep it simple.LOL.

 

[rpeerless]

As for the middle class taxpayers, it's a new chimney, a new septic and two rounds of trap on Saturday.

 

[spritc]

Here's another math problem for you: How does 91 million unemployed people equal 6.7% of 330 million? Shouldn't the unemployment rate be 27.5%?

 

[CharlieAMA]

I think the number's chrunchers use the number of people available for work, i.e. ages 18 and up, and then base the unemployment number or percentages on that. If you use the entire population, you include babies, people in school, retired or too old to work. I assume military personel are counted as employed. I'm no expert by any means, just my humble opinion.

 

[rpeerless]

But then that figure, also doesn't include the underemployed or people who are eligible for full time work but are locked into part time without any benefits.

 

[CharlieAMA]

True, but I'm not a numbers cruncher type of guy. I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to figuring what certain types of thresholds are used. I'm sure it can be looked up, but I wouldn't know where to start.

 

[crusha]

Because the 91 mil includes people who aren't looking for work, and the gubmint unemployment number only counts people who are looking, assessed according to whatever definition of "looking" prevails in the government at any given moment.


Mitt was onto something with that 47% crack. It was the most unpolished nugget of truth the American Public had heard in a long time...and half of them didn't like hearing it, one bit.