A 16 Trillion Dollar Anniversary

Fifty years ago today President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty. 16 plus trillion dollars spent on expanding the welfare system and we see what we now see. It is called failure and an expensive one at that. Our national debt is now about the amount spent pursuing this failed war so maybe it is time to start connecting some dots for yourself.

That move on Johnson's part became known as the creation of The Great Society, only obviously things haven't turned out too well other than to turn the federal government into a money munching behemoth with an insatiable appetite for our money since the government creates nothing really useful for consumption.

How can we get more for less? Different voices say different things but there now needs to be a national discussion and not the one Obama has about income inequality which is no more than a divisive political ploy to try to influence the 2014 election. Obama is already a lame duck so he might now want to concentrate on other things besides dividing our nation further.

One Voice Of Reason

So how in the world does any government spend close to 20 trillion dollars and produce minimal results? Are there primarily political, voting buying reasons behind what we see? That is obviously a big slice of the pie and under Barack Hussein Obama it has worsened rather than gotten better as he promised. Karl Marx's idea of the redistribution of wealth failed then and it remains a failure now. Looking at the Obama administration over the past 5 years is an illustration of that very failure.

The Democrats claim to be the "party of the people and the down trodden." Look at how they live and not what they say. Obama lives lavishly and takes numerous very expensive vacations. The latest has him giving Michelle a birthday vacation at the tax payer's expense. Has Obama done one thing to scale back his love of the good life at tax payer expense other than talk the talk? No he has not. People need to start waking up and realizing that those ruling class politicians have them right where they want them - dependent upon them for their daily bread. We are becoming a nation of people on the dole and it is not an accident.

So about 20 trillion dollars spent has decreased the poverty level by less than 2%. Under the Obama administration's incompetence the poor people of this nation have lost ground, not gained any. He talks the talk but knows nothing about walking the walk..

Lets see how Obama commemorates the "War on Poverty" if he mentions it at all. It opens up a can of worms for him if he does since it has become worse during his tenure rather than better. He used yesterday to jump up on a soap box again crowing about how those heartless Republicans don't want a 3 month increase on "emergency" unemployment benefits. That isn't exactly the case because what they are proposing is to offset something else in order to actually pay for the 6 plus billion dollar price tag the Democrats want to spend and not just add it to the national debt which is Obama's plan. Let our children and grandchildren pay for Obama's continued incompetence is what I hear him really saying.

He also repeated the nonsense about unemployment benefits creating jobs. He has said that, parroting none other than Nancy Pelosi who has also never held a real job in her life either, without offering a shred of prove other than citing some mystical, unnamed independent economic geniuses. Are those the same geniuses who have been advising Obama during the past 5 years of dismal economic success and an exploding national debt? Those folks Barack?

You don't achieve income equality by feeding a man a fish. You achieve that, in small measure, by teaching that man how to fish and have him do it on his own. You don't address income inequality by expanding the welfare state unless you have a socialist streak a mile wide coursing through your veins. Why would Obama be out there pleading for a three (3) month extension for unemployment benefits and at the same time proclaiming what an economic success his failed administration has been. It just doesn't all add up to any intelligent person. I learned with this president long ago not to listen to what he says but to look at what he HAS NOT done or accomplished. I also know he has played 160 rounds of golf since taking office which amounts to one round every 11 days. Speaking of priorities!


People say I'm rough on Barack Obama and I am. I remember all those pie in the sky promises he made to dupe people about his lack of qualifications and experience to hold the highest office in this land. He was elected as a novelty candidate and he wasn't a good idea then or now. So rail away about income inequality Obama but those listening need to understand that is no more than rhetoric used to further divide this nation and not to solving the problems he has helped to create himself.

The proof is in the pudding or lack of it. As he rails away he seems to forget that a record 47 million Americans are now on food stamps. That's an increase of 13 million people since he took office. The making of fish eaters or fishermen? The poverty rate has stood at 15% for three (3) straight years now. Don't mention that Barack as you take those lavish vacations and shoot those endless rounds of golf.

50 million Americans now live below the poverty line. How is that defined? That is pegged to a figure of a family of 4 surviving on $23,492.00 a year. Obama's cure for this sort of dilemma is to give more free stuff to more people. Guess what? There is no such thing as "government free stuff." The government makes nothing but misery for people's lives and it should not be that way.

No I don't expect Obama to commemorate Johnson's efforts. Johnson had a vision of helping Americans become prosperous and self-sufficient by a hand up, not a hand out. 50 years later with 16 plus trillion spent we see what has been yielded and it isn't a community of fishermen. What we see is a federal government with its boot heel on people's throats who have way too many exactly where they want them. It's called control my fellow Americans.

Yes, well Obama broke another record and made history. I'm certain he won't mention that either

Vote It," "Like" It, "Tweet" It, "Pin " It, "Share It" With Your Followers. Time to let em read it and keep reading it.

As Always,

The Frog Prince


More by this Author

  • "Ineptocracy" Is A Word
    18

    Ineptocracy is the new system of government that Obama-Biden ushered in. It is a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society...


Comments 22 comments

breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 2 years ago

Obama's goal is to create permanent socialist voters who no longer have any idea how to fend for themselves. This will keep people just like him in power for a long time. This country will be just like the Soviet Union. The people at the top lived a lavish lifestyle. Everyone else lived in crowded apartments with too many peopleand not enough electricity. Sounds like fun, doesn't it?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 2 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Pop nailed it...the goal of the Democrat left is to establish a permanent dependent class that will always vote for the Democrat left that feeds them.

It's that simple, and that's why the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to preserve it.


Don Bobbitt profile image

Don Bobbitt 2 years ago from Ruskin Florida

Frog Prince, thanks for a well written article that goes right to the point. Having worked for over 40 years in a competitive industry, I did learn a few "truths" about defining a project and the best ways to realize the maximum return for the dollar.

Well politicians are actually fiscal idiots. Idiots that have no concept of real project management. Nor, it seems do they care.

Here is what has happened with the Great Society, in my opinion. Johnson and his Gang took a lot of money and just threw it a a problem. With no real definition or management plan for success.

Picture a Roman emperor standing on a balcony, who threw pieces of Gold to the masses one day in hopes of making himself popular. What did he actually do? Well, the people there that day, who happened to get those pieces of Gold walked away smiling and talking about what a great Emperor they have, and the fact that they could get a little wine and celebrate tomorrow rather than look for work.

But, what about the other 95% of the population? What did they think?How about something like; What the Hell did he give them money for? What about Me? Why are my taxes so high?

My point? If you really want to get the most return for your dollar, then you need to make a plan and implement it. Looking at poverty, if you want to bring people out of their life of poverty, you need to give them skills that are marketable. Once someone has a skill, they have an opportunity for a good job.

Anyway, great article,

DON


Stu 2 years ago

Not much I can say here except that I agree with you. Admittedly, good jobs are hard to find right now, but as a generality excessive handouts create a culture of entitlement. More and more people choose not to work, and the shrinking pool of those who do work have to be ever more heavily taxed to pay for those who don't. The end result is depressed GNP, and ultimately everybody suffers. Pelosi's idea that welfare and unemployment benefits stimulate the economy is crazy; why does spending by a welfare recipient stimulate the economy any more than spending by the person who was taxed to pay for the welfare check? And what about the fact that spending by welfare and unemployment recipients all goes to consumption, depressing national savings and thus reducing the pool of equity and debt capital available to create jobs? BPOP got it exactly right - the "war on poverty" has essentially morphed into a socialist version of "incumbency insurance."


Caleb DRC profile image

Caleb DRC 2 years ago

Hey Frog, KNOCK IT OFF! Quit criticizing Obama for taking so many vacations, and playing so much golf. Don't you realize the less he "works for the American people" the better off we will be. If it will keep him permanently on the golf courses, I think we should take up a collection and pay for it ourselves---Oh! I forgot, we are paying for it.


stanfrommarietta profile image

stanfrommarietta 2 years ago

This is just bad stereotypes. Bill Clinton's Administration stopped the endless welfare and made people seek work after a time. The current benefits to those without work have come to an end, and there are no jobs for them. The interval in which benefits were to be provided was designed during a period when the economy was functioning well and did not anticipate a major recession with high unemployment. Many have even stopped looking for jobs. These are not people who want welfare. They want jobs, but the economy has not recovered fast enough to provide them. And the reason for this is because people who have a false idea that the federal government is like a household in having "to live within its means" have prevented i Congress from passing infrastructure bills of a magnitude that would have gotten this economy going again, providing the jobs needed. Unlike state and local governments and businesses and households the Federal government can create the money needed to raise the money needed for deficit spending. The process is a bit more complex than most people understand, but it is there. And taxpayers will not be held responsible for this created money. During deflations the Federal government must introduce new money into the economy to make up for the money loss through burst bubbles, imports sending money out of American accounts, and taxes and savings. It does this with deficit spending and the Federal Reserve creating the money needed in the end to buy back the securities representing money lent to the government by banks. The idea that the government is near collapse because of an excessive debt is shere ignorance of how government finances work. The debts of our government are being paid off all the time or are rolled over indefinitely and no problem. Moreover the debt-limit law is unconstitutional. Congress has put a limit on its powers to pay debts and borrow money, granted it in the Constitution. But if Congress can do this, it can put limits on any provision in the Constitution without seeking new amendments to the Constitution. That it cannot do!


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 2 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

stan - You seem to think the federal government is the answer. It isn't. It is the problem and not the solution.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 2 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Unlike state and local governments and businesses and households the Federal government can create the money needed to raise the money needed for deficit spending. The process is a bit more complex than most people understand, but it is there."

I don't believe in magic, Stan. Every new dollar 'created' out of thin air by government decreases the value of the existing dollars, and thus robs us of our wealth. It's called inflation, and it's the reason we will never see $1.00 gasoline or 30 cents per pound hamburger again. It's also the reason that retired people on fixed incomes are struggling to survive.

No Stan, printing up more money is not the solution...it's a major part of the problem.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 2 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Will - Stan doesn't seem too connected to reality.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 2 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Stan's beliefs are similar to those who buy into pyramid schemes, because they fail to simply do the math...the more 'money' that government prints and spends into circulation, the less each existing dollar is worth.

Let's say that just one dollar is printed and that it represents the entire value of the United states. That would be one very valuable dollar!

Now let's say nine more dollars are printed, making a total of ten. The original dollar is now worth one-tenth of the value of the US, so it has lost 9o% of its original value due to printing.

That's what's so wrong with just printing up more money!


stanfrommarietta profile image

stanfrommarietta 2 years ago

This is a common mistake. Merely because there may be in existence more dollars, does not take into account whether these dollars are all in savings, locked away in some vault, or some are in circulation and others have left the national economy in savings and buying of imports. The value of dollars is determined by the number of dollars actually circulating chasing goods and services If there are more dollars than the number of goods and services that can be produced at full production and full employment, then additional dollars circulating do not bring any added value. Those who possess these excess dollars will be able to use them to bid up the price of the goods so that they can purchase them. But no more goods and services are produced. So the number of the added dollars makes the dollars less in value per dollar. Inflation results, which devalues the dollars. More dollars are now needed to buy the same goods and services. On the other hand, if there are fewer dollars available than what would be needed to clear the goods and services produced (at less than full production and employment), producers would have to reduce the prices of their goods so that they clear the market. The value of each dollar is increased by the more goods and services that can be bought per dollar. This is deflation. When companies cannot sell all their goods and services, they lay off workers to reach a point where there are just enough workers to produce a number of goods that clears the market. People who have borrowed money at a lower value for the dollar, now discover that they are not earning as many dollars as they did before (may even be unemployed and without new income), and so many will find themselves unable to pay off their loans. Banks will stop or reduce lending.

The fallacy of WillStar's argument is in its failing to consider that the value of monetary units is based on the availability of dollars in circulation to purchase goods and services at stable prices. Furthermore one needs to consider whether the economy is in deflation or inflation, at full production and full employment or underproduction and under employment. Furthermore are there material sources available at the same prices and costs; are there new employees who can be hired from a labor pool of unemployed, idle workers willing to work at the going wag; then no inflation (or very low inflation) may result from creating new money and introducing it into circulation.

There are trillions of dollars in circulation outside of the United States' economy that have little or no effect on the dollar and its value in the United States.

Money has no intrinsic value. It depends on what can be bought with it, and it further depends on the availability of money in circulation to clear the market of goods and services at stable prices.

So, creating new money need not be devaluing (inflationary) in some common circumstances. The Fed has been doing QE, whereby they are buying securities back from banks with money it creates from nothing entered digitally into the spreadsheets of the banks' reserves kept at the Fed. And inflation has not occurred, contrary to the doom and gloom sayers. The reason it has not occurred is that this excess money has not yet prompted banks to lend more into circulation chasing goods and services. The reason that has happened is that business is not asking for loans because it does not see sufficient demand for its goods and services. And that is because at the present there is not full employment, so there are not households with enough money to buy any additional goods that might be produced.

If the central government issues new money to cover deficit spending for upgrading and rebuilding roads, dams, bridges, railways, airports, levees, ports. electrical grids, then that may create new demand and businesses will start investing their savings or borrowing from the banks and hiring new employees creating additional demand for goods and services. That process can occur during a deflation without significant increase in prices. But as full production and employment is reached, then the government must reduce spending, should raise taxes to drain money out of the economy until the inflation subsides.

So Modern Monetary Theory of fiat money does not say that one must always create new money. To do so at times can be inflationary. But it says that during a recession or depression, creating new money in connection with deficit spending, can restore the economy to full production and employment without creating serious inflation. (Serious inflation would be something like more than 5% to 10% per year).


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 2 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Stan - Your common mistake is thinking the Fed isn't doing a smoke and mirrors routine. Many things have been removed from the indexes used to measure inflation. Things like food and fuel are not there but one instance. Do some more research and come back with valid information. Try doing the grocery shopping over time and see real inflation. You out gas in your vehicle. Gas has gone from $1,83 to $3.19 plus since Obama took office. That commodity isn't used in the equation either. What planet did you say you live on?

BTW you are way off topic. The topic of this Hub is the War on Poverty being a complete flop. Now the Democrats want to throw more good money after bad by doubling down on a lost war. You're one of those people who think that our 17 trillion dollar and climbing debt is just funny money. It isn't Stan. It is debt and just the tip of the iceberg. Add in unfunded liabilities and think about it some more.

I haven't posted the national debt clock in a while but I will just for your sake once again. The federal government doesn't create jobs, other than government work Stan. You sound like Obama and that is nothing but a pipe dream. His almost trillion dollar stimulus was a flop. His "investing" in clean energy was political pay back and nothing more. It's called the companies went bankrupt Stan. Do you regularly put those rose colored "central government" glasses on and avoid reality.

Try reading the US Constitution and seeing what the real role of the federal government is supposed to be. We're a bit off course.

The numbers move fast here Stan so concentrate on what you are really seeing. It's called debt for every man, woman and child in this nation for generations to come. Central government your azz.

The Frog


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 2 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Here's the National Debt Clock real time for Stan's viewing pleasure.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/


stanfrommarietta profile image

stanfrommarietta 2 years ago

What is missleading about that table you show is the fact that taxpayers will NOT have to pay down the debt. So dividing the debt by the size of the population does not represent what actually is involved. Much of the debt in securities kept at the Fed do not represent debt to anyone in particular. There is an implicit debt obligation in every security, but unless there is someone who has bought the security to lend the government money, the security does not represent an actual debt.

When the Fed bought them from banks, it cancelled the government's debt to the banks, and the banks no longer have the securities. The government, in the Fed, has them. Right now there is about $3 Trillion of them. (As mature securities they are freely exchangeable for dollars). But the securities still carry the government promise to any one buying them to repay them at a future date the face value of the security. If they just store these securities at the Fed, they are just in limbo. The government does not owe itself.

The Fed wants them to be able to sell them later. Actually it first has to swap its mature securities for new ones from the Treasury. Then it sells these to banks during inflation to drain the reserves of the banks, constraining their lending and reducing the money supply. The Fed keeps their dollars for the time being out of circulation.

A lot of the debt you show is also based on the securities sold to private and foreign investors who have bought US Treasury securities and bonds. These are just like bank CD's, time deposits. Their money is not used to fund the operations of the United States governrment. The investors buy them because they know that with our fiat money system the Federal Reserve is always there to create new money with which to pay any debts our government may have. They have accumulated a lot of dollars and want the safest place to keep them. So they buy Treasury securities. So the holders of these securities will easily get their money back; in fact holders of securities are cashing them in all the time and getting their money back with interest.

Many investors in Treasuries roll over the government's debt by letting the Treasury swap the investor's mature securities for new securities with new redemption dates at a future date. They earn interest. It's just like when you roll over a CD at the bank when it becomes mature. So, most of this so-called national debt is not a debt, or if it is, it will be easily paid off when the time comes, or it is being rolled-over.

All the securities counted in the national debt figure are just representations of money created by the federal government since 1797. Sure its a lot. Actually much higher than $17 Trillion shown. But with 300 million people, and a prosperous people, there is lots of money that has been created to make that possible.

Finally, let me add, I think the debt-ceiling law is unconstitutional. The constitution gives powers to Congress. The Congress does not have the power alone to limit those powers. It takes a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution gives Congress the power to pay the government's debts and to borrow money. You cannot limit those powers by Congressional legislation. (So the debt limit law should be taken to the courts and shown to be unConstitutional). And in this case an Amendment to have a balanced budget or limit debt (the value of securities issued by the Treasury) would be the worse thing you could do. The Federal govenrment would become powerless to fight deflations, depressions, fight foreign wars or inflations or adjust its money supply to allow for population growth.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 2 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Stan - Looking at your profile you have not written one single Hub here on this forum. You are obviously an egg head who is doing nothing more than spouting left wing talking points and making an ass out of yourself in the process. Facts are facts Stan and you aren't going to be able to change them with a lot of long winded rhetoric.

Now get on topic and stay there or you will be wasting your time typing any more empty words. The National Debt Clock has been in existence for years on end and is an excellent tool to use to see the fiscal state of this nation. That fiscal state sucks Stan and all Obama's "promise zones" and doubling down on the War on Poverty will do nothing more than yield more debt. That seems to be your trend with a bloated central government. That's socialism in action Stan and it works until you run out of other people's money. Stay on topic form here on out. Not many readers are reading your long winded diatribes I assure you.

The Frog


stanfrommarietta profile image

stanfrommarietta 2 years ago

Frog Prince, I suppose freedom of speech is not a value to you. You would suppress anyone who does not agree with you. And you really don't understand how to establish what are really facts as opposed to rumors and innuendos.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 2 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

It goes like this in the world of blogging Stan. The writer, in this case that would be me, picks a specific topic to write about. That's the topic to be discussed using your freedom of speech as a reader. Then you, as a reader, veer off topic trying to explain things not RELEVANT to the topic at hand. When you, as the reader, do that then I, as the writer, warn you the reader to stay on topic. You failed to do that.

Now here's where your freedom of speech comes in. If you want to become the writer then write your own articles and explain away and see how it is received. You have yet to do that Stan. You have not written one single Hub yet but want to ramble on and on off topic on other people's articles trying to show your brilliance. Stan what you are displaying is your ignorance and discourtesy to writers in the world of blogging. I then exercise my "free speech" and stuff a sock in yours.

You liberals love to espouse "free speech" as long as it is yours and not anyone else's. My advice is to go away,

The Frog


stanfrommarietta profile image

stanfrommarietta 2 years ago

WillStarr 2 weeks ago:

"Stan's beliefs are similar to those who buy into pyramid schemes, because they fail to simply do the math...the more 'money' that government prints and spends into circulation, the less each existing dollar is worth."

The fallacy in WillStarr's comment is that "merely creating and spending more money into circulation will always produce inflation". Not always but sometimes. Inflation occurs when more money is circulating after a given amount of goods and services being produced at full production and full employment. At full production, a company cannot make more goods to match the additional money in the money supply. So the vender can raise prices for the limited number of goods and there will be someone who is able to buy at the higher price. But for this to be inflation and not a local or temporary problem, we must see this happening across the board for all goods and services. So, the economy as a whole has to be at full production and full employment.

When an economy is in a recession or depression, less money is available in ciriculation chasing the goods and services produced. Companies may have cut back their production (why produce more than you can sell?) Workers have been cut back to reach a level of production of just enough goods to be cleared by the money available (demand). So there is a good bit of unemployment. Prices may also fall to make it possible for the available demand to clear the market.

What has to be done is inject more new money into circulation so that demand for more goods and services can increase. That can only be done in a modern state with fiat money by the central government, which has the power to create money and spend it. The Constitution Art. 1 Sec 8 gives Congress (our government) that power. (The power to "coin" money has been determined by a Supreme Court decision during the late 1800's to include printed money). Nowadays ,most money is just created as digital electronic entries in a spread sheet. Money is not a commodity but a quantitative representation in a unit of account (dollars, e.g.) of debt obligations between parties in the economy. The value of the units, I believe is based on billions of comparisons made collectively by individuals of the relative value of goods and services so that the ratios of units correspond to ratios of subjective judgments of value for real goods and services. (I'm a quantitative psychologist, so this sounds plausible to me).

During recessions and depressions (both deflations) one can create and spend more money into the economy without inflation as long as there is enough productive capacity that can be increased and enough unemployed workers to be hired to do the work at stable prices and wages.

Modern Monetary Theory, which I am using here, does not recommend creating new money all the time and spending it. There are ways to put the brakes on money creation and spending and their effects: cut spending; raise taxes, have Fed sell new securities to banks to drain their reserves. Encourage imports over exports. Encourage savings by raising interest and discouraging investment also by raising interest rates.

In our Federal government deficit spending leads to new money creation by the Federal Reserve. When the Federal Reserve buys marketable Treasuries from banks, it creates money for the purchase on the spot (out of thin air). This restores diminished reserves resulting from buying the securities as a loan to the government. It also redeems the government's debt to the banks who originally held the securities but gave it up for an equal value of money from the Fed, which is a government agent buying with government money created by government powers delegated to it by Congress. With the banks back to what they were before lending to the government, the Fed's purchase of their securities can be regarded as equivalent to the Fed just giving the money to the Treasury. But in fact, it can't do this, because laws prevent the Fed from buying securities directly from Treasury with created money. This is supposed to keep the Fed and Administration and Congress independent from political influence. In reality, it doesn't but it makes the money creation a separate action from the issuance of securities by the Treasury. Under President Lincoln during the Civil War the North allowed the Treasury to directly create new money and issue it debt free. (That is, no one was owed for the money because it was not borrowed). These were known as "greenbacks" because the back of the dollar was printed in green ink. But after 1917 Treasury could not issue its Notes so liberally but was required to borrow its money. That enabled the banks to get in on the creation of money and earn some interest. There was no interest earned from issuing Treasury Notes. But the system we now have with banks as intermediaries between the Treasury and the Fed produces the same result as if the Treasury just creates the money and spends it. Of Course this spending has to be approved by Congress. So, under either system, neither Treasury nor Fed would have unlimited money creating powers, but given authorization they could create and spend an unlimited amount of money.

I don't know where WillStar got the idea that the Federal Reserve is a ponzi scheme. It sounds like the same book that Governor Perry referred to during a Presidential primary debate in 2011. But I see nothing here that is a Ponzi scheme.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 2 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Stan - To put it bluntly. You're full of crap. Now go write a fairy tale somewhere else. Reality escapes you.

The Frog


stanfrommarietta profile image

stanfrommarietta 2 years ago

I gather, Frog Prince, that you don't like what I write, but you have no rational arguments by which to counter what I write. I have just been commenting on some of the things you and others say in support of the b#((s#!t of the target article. You can't expect everyone to agree with you. Your commenters don't have to agree with you.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 2 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Stan I learned from Glen Beck to not start arguing with idiots long ago. All your arguments are refuted by looking at the reality of our economy and where it is headed. I don't really need to say a word. Now go away.

As I said, "Write a Hub and put your ideas forward and see how they are received and by whom." I wrote FACTS and not theory Stan.

TFP


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 2 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

I heard a different saying about arguing with idiots "Never argue with an idiot - bystanders can not tell the difference."

As for the article, concur that the war on poverty is over - poverty has won. Based on the current state of the union and offerings from folks such as stanfrommarietta, I'd offer for consideration that the war on ignorance is over also.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working