jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (4 posts)

How much should the tax payer be force to spend to reduce poverty?

  1. cjhunsinger profile image73
    cjhunsingerposted 3 years ago

    How much should the tax payer be force to spend to reduce poverty?

    As a nation America currently has a debt of $18 trillion and unfunded liabilities of $127 trillion. In 1964 President Johnson declared a War on Poverty. At that time the poverty level was about 14 %. The US Census Bureau, this week will release poverty figures of 14%. From 1964 to present the tax payer was forced to pay $22 trillion to achieve what? 109 million Americans are on welfare, 92 million are not in the workforce and the median income has decreased by $4,000 per year. What does the future hold?

  2. lone77star profile image83
    lone77starposted 3 years ago


    Simple mechanics. War on Anything and you increase that "thing."

    America has had so many "wars" on things and all of them have failed. I wonder if this is by design. Certainly, the bureaucrats have more power to funnel and channel funds away from the people who worked for those funds. Such wars have so poor a track record, they need to be repealed.

    But there's more going on here than meets the eye. That should be obvious to anyone who has studied history, current events and news media across multiple sources (not just the Mainstream Media sources).

    Simple critical thinking applied to the language of the media shows that we are being manipulated in an Orwellian manner. Take war as a "peacekeeping action," for instance. Since when has war ever been peace anything? War is never peace, except in George Orwell's _1984_ and the American media.

    War on Drugs? Big Wall Street banks were caught laundering money for drug cartels -- fined hundreds of millions of dollars, but no bankers went to jail for such criminal activity. Ouch!

    Empirical evidence shows this War on Poverty doesn't work. But it also reveals the possibility that other forces may be at work -- corruption taking advantage of the knee-jerk reaction of public and legislators to media stimuli. "OMG! Poverty is ruining America. We have to do something about it." "OMG! The Housing Bubble burst in 2008. If we don't prop up the corrupt bankers and keep them out of jail, the whole world will go down the toilet."

    It all keeps getting more and more insane.

    Now, the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave is actually Land of the Slave (legislated tyranny starting with the unPatriot Act) and Home of the Coward (oh, please protect me from the boogie man).

    As Franklin said, those who give up a little liberty for security deserve neither. And that's exactly what America has done.

    Perhaps a bigger reason for doing away with this legislated "compassion," is that compassion should be individual responsibility, not offloaded to the Nanny Tyranny. Personal responsibility has been eroded on multiple fronts for more than a century, especially in America.

    1. Marisaupa profile image60
      Marisaupaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Zero, I agree wholeheartedly. It is amazing how fast self-responsibility would increase if people were allowed to hit real bottoms; unlike now when so called poverty households include cable TV, multiple vehicles, cell phones, etc.

    2. cjhunsinger profile image73
      cjhunsingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      lone77--"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." B. Franklin credited. No war on poverty we would be $3 trillion in the black.