The War on Poverty’s Biggest Casualties

black-and-homeless-4x31Fifty years after liberals launched their sacrosanct “War on Poverty,” Americans, and black Americans in particular, aren’t better off.

But neo-Marxist ideologue that he is, President Obama is determined to double-down on leftist failure, widening the so-called war by calling for the biggest welfare spending increases in American history— amounting to more than $10 trillion over a decade, according to the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector.

This War on Poverty that Obama wants to escalate came on the heels of the death of President John F. Kennedy.

As the country was reeling in shock just seven weeks after Kennedy was assassinated, his successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson, urged Congress to embark on a new metaphorical war effort against poverty. In that State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1964, Johnson said, “Let this session of Congress be known … as the session which declared all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.”

This “unconditional war on poverty in America … will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won,” Johnson said. “The richest nation on earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it.”

The War on Poverty also gave taxpayers’ money to so-called community groups like ACORN and Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation in order to encourage them to agitate against the status quo. This, in turn, stimulated demand for more government spending as taxpayer dollars became a kind of ever-increasing subsidy for pro-Big Government activism. The federal government still hands out huge grants to left-wing groups to subsidize their efforts to take away our economic freedoms.

A half a century later, federal and state welfare spending, adjusted for inflation, is now 16 times greater. The country has spent $20.7 trillion in 2011 dollars over the past 50 years on welfare programs, far exceeding what the U.S. has spent on every war it has fought.

Already the federal government administers 80 different means-tested welfare programs. Government blew $916 billion on these programs in 2012 alone, and about 100 million Americans accepted aid from at least one of the programs, costing $9,000 per recipient on average, a figure, Heritage’s Rector notes, that doesn’t include Social Security or Medicare benefits.

Yet “victory” in the War on Poverty is nowhere in sight. In 2012, 15 percent of Americans lived below the poverty line, roughly the same percentage as in the mid-1960s. Currently, around 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the government defines as a four-member family earning $23,550 a year. And 47 million Americans receive food stamp benefits, 13 million more than when President Obama was first sworn in.

“Liberals argue that we aren’t spending enough money on poverty-fighting programs, but that’s not the problem,” according to Rector. “In reality, we’re losing the war on poverty because we have forgotten the original goal, as LBJ stated it half a century ago: ‘to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities.'”

Despite an orgy of federal spending, blacks and other minorities have suffered the most from big government poverty alleviation efforts. The anti-marriage, anti-family tilt of welfare policies has devastated black communities.

“The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do, and that is to destroy the black family,” says economics professor Walter E. Williams of George Mason University, a black man who rose from poverty.

As a result of misguided government policies that grew out of the War on Poverty, out-of-wedlock birthrates have mushroomed, David Horowitz and John Perazzo report in “Government vs. the People.”

By 1976, the illegitimacy rate for whites jumped to 10 percent from 3 percent in 1965. Blacks fared far worse, as their illegitimacy rate skyrocketed to 50.3 percent, more than double the percentage in 1965. “In 1987, for the first time in the history of any American racial or ethnic group, the birthrate for unmarried black women surpassed that for married black women,” they wrote.

Currently, whites have an illegitimacy rate of 29 percent, compared to a shocking 73 percent for blacks. Overall, the poverty rate for single parents with children was 35.6 percent in 2008, but for married couples with children it was a much lower 6.4 percent.

The poverty rate for single Hispanic parents with children was 37.5 percent in 2008, but for married Hispanic couples with children it was 12.8 percent. The poverty rate for single black parents with children was 35.3 percent in 2008, but for married black couples with children it was 6.9 percent.

The economic situation of blacks has deteriorated sharply during Barack Obama’s presidency, in particular. Nationally, unemployment stands at 7 percent but among black Americans unemployment has essentially stood still. When Obama was inaugurated in 2009 black unemployment was 12.7 percent. Today it is 12.5 percent.

In 2008 the black poverty rate was 12 percent; now it is 16.1 percent. Median income fell by 3.6 percent in white households to $58,000 in the same time frame, but slid 10.9 percent to $33,500 for black households, according to the Census Bureau.

“The data is [sic] going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category,” Tavis Smiley, a black, left-wing radio talk show host said in the fall. “On that regard, the president ought to be held responsible.”

These terrible numbers help to explain the president’s recent attempt to change the subject from the economy to “income inequality,” an abstraction that fails to register with most Americans.

They also help to explain why Obama intends to push for an increase in the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28.

Left-wingers have successfully been changing the subject, moving the discussion away from their policy failures for 50 years now.

Why should they change a winning formula now? They know they can continue to count on taxpayer funding for their adventures in leftist activism.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Hank Rearden

    Failed? The Dems set out to create a permanent client class and they succeeded.

    • davarino

      And minorities say “give me more of the same please”. I guess they believe the lies the left tells them, and the education system isnt making them any smarter either.

  • T-Rex

    Wasn’t LBJ credited with stating, to paraphrase, “we’ll have them “n’s” voting for us for the next 200 years”?

  • PAthena

    The anti-marriage welfare policies have led to the violent teenage gangs and promiscuity of black teenage boys and girls. Boys who grow up without fathers tend to be violent and girls who grow up without fathers tend to be promiscuous.

    • Sheik Yerbouti

      What’s amazing is the way the anti-family left was able to sell this to poorer Americans (not just the black ones). They made it sound like they would always have a full belly and wouldn’t have to worry about life in general. They turned some communities into a continuous cycle of parties and little else. What are they celebrating?

  • DaCoachK

    It seems like that when the government declares war on something, we get more of it. Could the government declare a “war” on productivity? It might lead to more of it, which would be good. But then again, that would make more conservatives, so the Left won’t stand for that.

  • DaCoachK

    The “War on Poverty” is about the only war America has ever fought that the Left didn’t want to surrender first.

  • veeper

    Welfare is a family business for blacks…..

    passed on from generation to generation….

    Want to expand the family business……have more kids than your mama…..

    • justquitnow

      Bigotry is passed down through the generations too…one racists douche teaches his little rat to be a racist douche and then you teach your kids to hate all those welfare blacks.

      • veeper

        You think it’s time for you to put a stop to the racism in your family tree……

        while you’re at it…..stop the HATRED also….

        • justquitnow

          Not everyone is a hypocrite dude. Sometimes you have to take it.

          • Thomas L. Stafford

            JQN; You have made a lot of assumptions about veeper that are not supported by any objective facts. You think he is white, you think he is male, you think he is only referring to people of color, you think his opinion comes out of dislike for individuals who are to an extent trapped by their circumstances, Why? I’ll tell you. You want to continue to wear the badge of victimhood, defend those who do, and or help keep them there because they help support the socialist and immoral policies of the Democrat party.

  • Jerry G

    We can also thank LBJ for something else. The death of JFK.

  • justquitnow

    Jesus man….all this to give them cover to not extend unemployment benefits? I like how Leftists don’t just hate everything about humanity and are always trying to convert or kill everyone, “they” are also immortal or span centuries, always working on their plans for domination of your precious bodily fluids.

    The biggest lie that the left peddles is that anyone actually cares about their fellow man. “They” don’t…whenever “they” express concern for people starving or dying from easily curable conditions, they are hiding their true plans for domination….so you don’t have to feel bad when you don’t care. Caring hurts poor people after all…the tough love of ignoring is what they need.

    • reader

      If the left “cared” they’d give more to charities. But they don’t. It’s a scientific fact. The left likes loot – that’s what it’s all about.

      • justquitnow

        sigh…thinking about the world as “left vs right” in every aspect has permanently damaged some of you I’m afraid.

        • reader

          Apert from not having anything of substance to counter, I don’t like the left vs right division either. In the words of Antony Sutton, it’s a Hegelian trap. Let’s say, it’s marxist statists vs liberty lovers.

          • reader

            Should read, “apart from you not having anything of substance to counter”, of course.

          • justquitnow

            You seem to use it with no problem and intermixed with stats like the “left” is a thing and not a description.

          • reader

            Obviously, you have no substance responce to the argument. If it makes you feel better, go ahead, you can rightly accuse me of having been a bad speller, getting parking tickets, being late for dates, whatever. The fact that the Democrat supporting statists, or the “left”, or marxists, all of them don’t “care”. They are all looters at heart. That’s what empirical evidence clearly shows.

          • justquitnow

            Yep…like a I said…no one cares. Not really. All the care is fake, so you don’t have to feel bad when you don’t care. Just blame “lefty” or the grand conspiracy of Marxists…

          • reader

            So, it’s straight forward then: once the “moral” component of the income redistribution is eliminated, it all boils down to trivial looting. Fess up to it. It’s easy now.

          • justquitnow

            (rubs eyes) I didn’t think my sarcasm was that cryptic. I don’t want to play that favorite of cult games…”dispute my crazy theories about lefty”.

            I was making fun of you, taking your position. If you honestly think that no one in the world actually cares about people suffering then it is more than likely that you don’t give a dead donkeys kidney about them.

            If it’s all “looting” then yeah you not only don’t have to have any compassion, you can be mad at the poor and the people trying to help them. Just blame the condition of the poor on the people trying to help them. Now you really don’t have to lift a finger or feel bad at all. You are actually helping the poor by not helping them. Problem solved…engage self righteousness.

          • justquitnow

            “they” this and “left” that. I’m tired of illustrating how the cult use of the boogeyman “left” in all it’s forms just allows you to not care. Just think of all the marxists making things worse for poor people by trying to help them (falsely of course, since it’s actually about domination). That’s why I’ve been sarcastically saying that no one really cares…because that is what some of you want to believe.

          • reader

            I believe what the reality – that is what evidence demonstrates as reality. You believe the cause completely unmoored from reality and human experience – according to empirical evidence. So, you’re pretty much a religious marxist fanatic.

          • justquitnow

            Why not…everyone else you don’t like is. And since leftists always hide their true feelings, you can pound anyone with that. Let their denials be your evidence. Yeehaw!

          • reader

            Your denial is evidence of you being in denial. I deal with hard incontrovertible data – as everyone moored to reality.

        • Habbgun

          The worst bigotry in the world today is the idea that an idea out of Europe just because it is out of Europe is an important idea worth considering. If a failure like socialism had come out of Africa or Asia or South America it would have been discarded long ago. Saddest thing to see is light black skin with euro-supremacist ideas is a ticket to success. Soon they’ll turn on the people they pretend to represent and you’ll be the biggest cheerleader for it.

          • justquitnow

            I don’t know…I can think of some sadder things. Like people lost in a cult of bullish*t…

            When is the turn suppose to happen habbgun…just when is the islamofacistcommie plot against your bodily fluids finally going to come along and validate a single piece this garbage? Never. Another Nostradamus of dumb. FREEDUMB that is.

          • Habbgun

            Geez man…that is some really bad webtrolling. You got the snark right but the bodily fluids was a ’50’s reference and not very good. Bodily paranoia is left wing now. You should have got the memo. We are supposed to fear vaccines and electronic spying by the Moral Majority in everyone’s uterus.

            Second criticism is you didn’t address my comment about Europe. You let it slide because the fact that a European idea is not necessarily a better idea. That is a truism. Your job is to say of course it is better than dumb redneck America. Bad job all around. B- and should have been a C but the cult reference and snark saves it. Try again.

          • justquitnow

            You don’t need another human on this end. Just put a Marx mask on hat rack and then scream at it.

          • Habbgun

            Worse webtrolling. This gets a D. You aren’t even trying now.

          • justquitnow

            Sigh. It’s not trolling when you answer a post of mine and I reply…even if you don’t like it.

            The bodily fluids reference is from Dr. Strangelove which was made in the mid 60’s. You should see the movie since you obviously haven’t.

            What about Europe? Your analysis is stupid.

            “Saddest thing to see is light black skin with euro-supremacist ideas is a ticket to success.”

            WTF are you even talking about?

          • Habbgun

            I’ve seen Dr. Strangelove. References to Strangelove and only worthwhile if funny. My analysis with Europe is not stupid even if it makes you uncomfortable. Do you really believe Occupy would have been take seriously if it wasn’t a bunch of white kids? Do you really believe Marxism would survive if it wasn’t a philosophy out of central Europe? Race and racism is very much a part of this whether you believe it or no. You should acquaint yourself with early Marxist theorizing on whether non-Europeans had the intellectual capacity to handle communism. It is a short jump from German proletariat to master race. Same people and same culture.

            As far as light skin blacks reference you aren’t Jewish I guess so you won’t see parallels between the Obamas, Melissa Harris Perrys, etc. of the world and the leftist “Jews” of today. Today’s anti-Zionist Jews were yesterdays Jews who married out into white leftist families but swore they represented the Jewish people. Their loyalties were elsewhere and now that they are more removed and irrelevant they are more virulently anti-Israel and anti-religion. Their loyalties are to a political party and nothing more. Don’t think blacks are not making the same ugly mistakes. Voting Democrat down the line is selling yourself out. Those blacks that get into the leadership are loyal to party and will sell out their own. Just like the Noam Chomskys, Max Blumenthals of the world.

          • justquitnow

            It doesn’t make me uncomfortable. Something about if socialism came from Africa, it what? Wouldn’t find favor?…

            Now you’re using “leftist” like it’s a race. You’re right I don’t see the parallels. I have no idea what point you are trying to make now. I don’t care what race you are, if you live in the United States, it should have your loyalty.

            If African Americans gravitate towards the Democratic party, it might be because they are running away from the other party. Not that there aren’t blind partisans out there of every stripe, but I don’t think they are going to run into your arms anytime soon. You know “those blacks”.

          • Habbgun

            Of course Socialism wouldn’t find favor if it came from Africa or Asia. It is also more virulent the more it goes from Europe. You think China, North Korea, Cambodia are not more extreme because Marxism demands that everyone be as European as possible and these cultures have to be remade top to bottom. If you don’t you are either willfully naive or simply don’t care.

            Is leftism a race? No. It is a preference for a race. You don’t think those white kids at Occupy embrace socialism because its European in origin and it makes their white skinned place in the world exalted again? You are kidding yourself! They are afraid because their futures aren’t that bright (I can sympathize with that) so they find a cheap way of feeling intellectual and special (which is abhorrent).

            As for the blacks I don’t care if they run into my arms any time soon. I care that they smarten up and not make the same mistakes as others have. One party governance is not your friend. If they would embrace a third party without the ingrained Democratic machine corruption then more power to them. Right??????

          • justquitnow

            Er…I don’t know man. I’m going to go…just pretend I’m still here and you can keep telling me what I believe.

  • UCSPanther

    The lesson I can take away from the so-called “War on Poverty”, is that if you want to break the spirit of a vulnerable group of people without firing a shot, you brainwash them into thinking that they are victims, and then over the course of several generations, you poison them with a form of perverted kindness.

    When all is said and done, you will know you have succeeded when you have destroyed any semblance of work ethic, civic and personal pride, responsibility, family cohesion and law and order, and in doing so, consigned them to the gutter.

  • Zombee

    The Obama welfare class is the only group afforded the privileged of having six kids or more, at the expense of the working middle-class taxpayers. The well will run dry one day.


    This article stands as a reminder of the magnitude of the betrayal by Establishment Republicans – for it is they who refused to fight the Democrats every step of the way, allowing a permanent underclass of ever-growing size to come into being and financing hard-Left groups from ACORN to Planned Parenthood.

    The Democratic Left is the primary enemy – but the Republican Establishment is still trying to prevent Conservatives from fighting it.

    • BagLady

      In other word, two sides of the same coin. You just can’t face it, you Yanks. You’re screwed whichever way you turn.

  • kendrick1

    Who will decide if YOU are unfit to live?

    Cameron S. Schaeffer: Affordable Care Act’s undertone: ‘the duty to die’

    Read more here:

  • truebearing

    What has the “war on poverty” accomplished? It has destroyed the economic foundation of the United States, bought a lot of votes for political crooks like Obama, and created a mutant subset of blacks who live in ghettos and kill each other over drugs and tennis shoes. It turned out to be a War For Poverty, overty being the only “egalitarian” thing Marxists have ever come remotely close to delivering.

  • veeper

    the U.S. hasn’t won a war, any kind of war, since ww2……

    if it’s a war…..america will lose…..

    obama’s race war for the 2014 elections is in full swing…..

    once again …..america loses……

    america has become a sick and twisted country…..

    with government politicians and media doing the twisting…..

  • Phương Trinh

    The federal government still hands out huge grants to left-wing groups to subsidize their efforts to take away our economic freedoms.

    tụ điện | trạm biến áp|dau
    phat hd gia re

  • veeper

    Charles Barkley:

    Black people have been voting for the same people for 50 years and Black people are still poor…..

  • Zork Gábor Hun

    “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years. [Touting his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]”
    ― Lyndon B. Johnson

    Just to be clear about the original intention and to confirm that on these terms the project was an outstanding success

  • antioli

    If you want to cure black unemployment the stop letting in people that are taking their jobs. That means legal and illegal immigrants .
    Put up tariffs especially on goods manufactured abroad by American companies and imported into the USA.
    If you wait for education improvements there will never be any jobs.

  • dnteatylwsno

    Here we go…again. The narrative is in play folks. I can hear it all too well. Republicans vote it down and the Obama/Hillary media will “report” their usual propaganda mantra excoriating those greeeeeeeeeeeeedy Republicans 24/7.

  • Eric L. Wattree

    This is pure propaganda. You said, “Currently, whites have an illegitimacy rate of 29 percent, compared to a shocking 73 percent for blacks.” What evidence do you have of that? If this were anything other than blatant propaganda I wouldn’t even have to ask, since any freshman Englishman student should know that whenever you make an assertion you should start backing it up with factual evidence in the very next sentence, or no later than the following paragraph. So where is your evidence here? Are we just supposed to take your word that you aren’t lying to us?
    Here are the facts:
    The vast majority of Black people in this country are middle class or above. African Americans are the second largest consumer group in America with a combined buying power of over $892 billion currently and likely over $1.1 trillion by 2012. In 2002 African American owned businesses accounted for 1.2 million of the US’s 23 million businesses, and 47% of Africans Americans own their own homes. – U.S. Census Bureau
    And here are more facts:
    Corporate Welfare Nearly Double the Cost of Social Programs
    About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.

    In 1921 — eight years before the great depression — Republicans took over the helm of this nation for 12 years. During that time there were three Republican administrations, the first of which was the administration of Warren G. Harding. History remembers Harding’s administration for one thing more than anything other — scandal. It was during Harding’s presidency that the Teapot Dome Scandal erupted. His administration was considered the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States — until Nixon’s, then Reagan’s, and finally Bush’s.
    Next, in 1923, came Calvin Coolidge, the president that Ronald Reagan is said to have most admired. Coolidge’s policies of large tax cuts, allowing business a free-rein, and his encouragement of stock speculation contributed greatly to the impending stock market crash and the great depression that was to come.
    Then in 1929 Herbert Hoover came to power. During his administration the stock market crashed, starting the great depression. In spite of the fact that by 1933 the unemployment rate was at 33.3% with 16 million people out of work, the Republican, Hoover, just sat, thinking that the economy would eventually rejuvenate itself. During Hoover’s administration 15,000 WWI veterans marched on Washington demanding that they be paid what they were owed by the government. Hoover responded by calling in federal troops to throw these ex-servicemen off government property.
    Finally in 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a liberal democrat, was elected overwhelmingly. He immediately surrounded himself with a group of the finest minds in the country, including Columbia professors Adolph A. Berle, Jr., Rexford G. Tugwell, and Raymond Moley, known at the time as the “Brain Trust.” After assembling these men and others he went about the business of developing a” New Deal” for the working class people of this country.
    The New Deal had two components — one to help the economy to recover from the effects of the great depression, and a second component to give relief to the American people and to insure that they were never be placed in a position of total destitution again. To help heal the economy Roosevelt created programs that regulated business, controlled inflation, and brought about price stabilization; to bring relief to the people he signed The National Labor Relations Act which guaranteed workers the right to collective bargaining, and he created the Social Security Administration to guarantee workers some sort of income once they became too old to work. He also signed the Fair Labor Standards Act which protected workers rights and set a minimum wage for workers.
    With his New Deal in place Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this “bleeding heart liberal”, not only led this country out of the worst, Republican generated, crisis that this country has ever faced, but went on to lead the free world in victory over Hitler in WWII. He then ushered in the most sustained prosperity that the world has ever known.
    One would think that conservatives would have seen the light, but their passion to further enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle and lower classes seems to supersede all logic. Therefore, from the moment that the New Deal went into place, conservatives have been determined to dismantle it. The closest they’ve come to succeeding started during the Reagan administration with Supply-Side Economics, or, “Reaganomics” — and the battle is currently raging in Washington D.C. as we speak.
    Supply- Side Economics was a scheme hatch by U.S.C. economist Arthur Laffer and the Reagan crowd which was supposed to cut the deficit and balance the budget. The theory behind Reaganomics was ostensibly, if you cut taxes for business and people in the upper tax brackets, and then deregulated business of such nuisances as safety regulations and environmental safeguards, the beneficiaries would invest their savings into creating new jobs. In that way the money would eventually “trickle down” to the rest of us. The resulting broadened tax base would not only help to bring down the deficit, but also subsidize the tremendously high defense budget. When the plan was first floated, even George Bush, Reagan’s vice president to be, called it “voodoo economics.”
    Reaganomics, for the most part, sought to undo many of the safeguards put into place during the Roosevelt era and create a business environment similar to that which was in place during the Coolidge Administration. What actually took place, however, was even more like the Coolidge era than planed.
    Instead of taking the money and investing it into creating new jobs, the money was used in wild schemes and stock market speculation. One of these schemes, the leveraged buy out, involved buying up large companies with borrowed funds secured by the company’s assets, then paying off the loan by selling off the assets of the purchased company. This practice cost the citizens of this country its industrial base. In addition, the bottom fell out of the stock market. On Monday, October 19, 1987 the Dow-Jones Average fell 508.32 points. It was the greatest one-day decline since 1914 – 15 years before the Great Depression.
    And what about Ronald Reagan’s promise to balance the budget and lower the deficit? By the time he left office he was not only the most prolific spender of any president, but he also added more to the deficit than all of the other presidents from George Washington to his own administration combined. And what does the Republican Party propose to do about that? One of the Republican proposals was their “contract with America,” a capitol gains tax cut — for the rich.
    Due to the continued freewheeling fiscal policies of conservative Republicans, between 1986 and 1989, spanning the presidencies of Reagan and Bush Sr., the FSLIC had to pay off all the depositors of 296 institutions with assets of over $125 billion.
    Then in 1988 Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $1.3 billion. It was headed by Neil Bush, brother of George W. The investigation alleged that he was guilty of “breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest.” The issue was eventually settled out of court with Bush paying a mere $50,000 settlement.
    Then there was the Lincoln Savings and loan scandal in 1987, involving John McCain. The scandal was very similar to the one that is currently playing out on Wall Street. He was one of a group of senators dubbed “The Keating Five” involved in a scandal by the same name.
    In 1976 Charles Keating moved to Arizona to run the American Continental Corporation. In 1984, shortly after the Reagan era push to deregulate the savings and loan community, Keating bought Lincoln Savings and Loan and began to engage in highly risky investments with the depositors’ savings. In 1989 the parent company, which Keating headed, went bankrupt, and it resulted in over 21,000 investors losing their life savings. Most of the investors were elderly, and the loss amounted to about 285 million dollars.
    After having received over a million dollars from Keating in illegal campaign contributions, gifts, free trips, and other gratuities, the Keating Five–Senators John Glenn, Don Riegle, Dennis DeConini, Alan Cranston, and Sen. John McCain–attempted to intervene in the investigation into Keating’s activities by the regulators. Later, they were admonished to varying degrees by the senate for attempting to influence regulators on Keating’s behalf. Charles Keating ended up being convicted for fraud, racketeering and conspiracy, for which he received 10 years by the state court, and a 12 year sentence in federal court. After spending four and a half years in prison, his convictions were overturned. But prior to being retried, he pled guilty to a number of felonies in return for a sentence of time served.
    Then came the George W. Bush administration that caused close to a million people to die uselessly in an illegal war in Iraq, robbed the American people blind, whose fumbling ignited the longest war in American history in Afghanistan, and whose greed came very close to sending the nation into yet another depression.
    Now, after all of their repeated efforts to deplete the national treasury, they’re unanimously voting against every piece of legislation that the Democrats propose to repair the damage they created, and to bring relief to the American people. Then they have the audacity to claim that they’re doing it because they’re concerned about deficit spending.
    They’re against affordable health care for American families; they’re against any kind of spending to put Americans back to work, and they’re against extending unemployment insurance to relieve the burden of America’s unemployed. What’s particularly telling, however, is they’re also against any kind of strong legislation to prevent the financial community (them) from being able to rob the American people in the future.
    The fact is, what they really wanted was to maintain the status quo, and make damn sure that the American people remained miserable, hungry, and divided until 2012 elections so they’d have a better chance to regain power and raid the treasury again. Republican Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, was frustrated and reckless enough to say it out loud – “Our No. 1 priority is to make this president a one-term president” – not to save America, or to bring relief to the American people, but to make Barack Obama a one-term president. Flag pens in lapels and patriotic rhetoric notwithstanding, that says it all about the GOP’s lack of concern for America, or the American people.
    Now that they’ve lost the election, their agenda has shifted to making sure that President Obama is not successful, because if he is, and you combine that with the rapidly changing demographic and Hillary Clinton’s popularity, that could spell doom for the future of the GOP – and it should, because they’re grossly out of touch with reality, and, America’s best interest. They’re out to create a corporate feudalist society. The government shutdown alone, clearly demonstrates that they have absolutely no respect for democracy.
    And this is not just political rhetoric. Here is the activity of the Republican congress who ran in the 2010 election on their claim that their number one priority was to bring economic relief, and create jobs for the American people:
    History is clear. The conservative Republicans don’t mind spending money, they just don’t want to spend it on those who need it – us. Remember, they’re the party of Alexander Hamilton, one of this country’s founding fathers who believed that only those who owned property should even be allowed to vote. He also said:
    “All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people…. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government.” Debates of the Federalist Convention (May 14-September 17, 1787).
    So, let’s set the record straight. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that “bleeding heart liberal”, not only brought the nation back from the Great Depression and saved the world from Hitler during his life, but his “New Deal” for the American people gave us the greatest prosperity we’ve ever known, and allowed him to reach back from the grave to save the nation from Ronald Reagan 50 years after his death.
    That isn’t to say that the liberal Democratic philosophy corners the market on what is in the best interest of the nation — it is clear that both parties have had illustrious moments in the past — but rather, this is one of those defining issues in American politics that determines whether this is to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or a government where the citizens or nothing more than disposable resources for big business.
    In the past the Democratic Party has always been there to draw a line in the sand on this issue, but in recent history the liberal philosophy has been distorted to the point that even Democrats are distancing themselves from their own political philosophy.
    But what makes America great, are those dramatic moments in American politics when that one individual has the courage to put everything on the line to defend, protect, and save the American people from disaster. And the annals of modern American history will clearly show that during those moments, it was a “bleeding heart liberal” that stepped up to the plate. First FDR, then Bill Clinton, and now Barack Hussein Obama.
    Thus, future historians will record that there is nothing more honorable in American politics than a bleeding heart . . . because their hearts bleed for America.

    • djc_1946


    • UCSPanther

      The historical record does not lie: It was LBJ’s half-baked policies that led to the mess that welfare is these days.

    • Chris Behme

      And also, your mother makes $680/hr. with this one weird trick…..

    • reader

      If anything is propaganda is this wordy crap void of any hard data. None, whatsoever. Just a few non sequitur anecdotes. Here’s where history is clear: we now have the lowest work force participation rate since the bleeding heart Carter in 1978. No coincidence. No crap. Hard data.

  • Marlin B. Newburn

    Facts mean nothing, corrupt government means nothing, willful compounding of social problems by financing irresponsible birthing and crime, and adolescent excuses for personal failures taken seriously by politicians also – mean nothing.

    A majority of adult-children voters bow at the altar of government, and regardless of how miserable they make life for everyone, including themselves, with their choices, rational discourse will not dissuade them.

    Now we have government gun-grabbers busy with their confiscation efforts, and a MSM supporting that along with just about any effort to deny corruption among liberals in office. So what’s next?

    Will the sober, and reality-based adults in this country ultimately take a stand? If so, how? A lot remains to be seen.

  • Consider

    Once upon a time (long ago or recently, depending on the observer) , an article appeared on this website which argued that there is no poverty in America, or at least that it was significantly less than usually reported. Someone with more time and better computer skills than I have, could perhaps still find the piece in some archive.

    Poverty in America, it was said, is a (postmodernist?) construct devoid of any meaning since people considered poor in America, usually owned houses, one or more cars per family, plasma TV, air conditioning and some even swiming pools.

    Furthermore, they enjoyed exceptional social mobility so that few remained in that status for long. The perception of poverty, it was said (or resulted from the argumentation, I don’ t remember exactly), arised from the fact that the bar was set too high.

    Now we learn that all of the above was bullshit.

    • reader

      There’s certainly more poverty in America now, since the progressives got to running things. The lowest work participation rate since 1978…Wait, that’s when the another “top 5″ progressive had been in charge.

      • Consider

        So it was bullshit, wastn’it? I mean, the article, or the thesis propounded there.
        It was written, if I remember correctly, during the Bush era, to prove how much the free market economy was superior.
        Otherwise someone could think that the ‘left’s’ war on poverty has brought some results (despite the usual oscilations that characterize social development).

        • reader

          Firstly, you can’t even coherently describe what article are you talking about – let alone what the article really was about. Secondly, free market is certainly superior to marxism, which I’ve just illustrated with two hard data points. Obviously and predictably, it went straight over your head. Not surprisingly either.

          • Consider

            Oh yes I can.
            With some effort I might even find that article. But its not worth the trouble. I remember well the message: there is almost no poverty in America, and what passes for poor in America in other places would be considered middle class or even rich.
            I may even agree with that analysis, but then the diatribe against the lapsed ‘war on poverty’ by the ‘left’ fails.

          • reader

            Self-dellusionary “I can” is why illiterates voted for this president, but, in reality you can’t. For example, you can’t argue with the fact that “progressive” policies are economically illiterate and therefore economically damaging, as the hard data I’m referring to is showing.

  • reader

    As they say, the worst fools to suffer are the ones who think they’re smart. Laughing? You can’t even read. I don’t think that no one actually cares. I know for a fact that most marxists don’t, because I see the evidence of this. My compassion has nothing to do with marxists not having any. You don’t know anything about it, because you don’t know how much I contribute. In fact, the point of the study I referenced is that conservatives GIVE MUCH MUCH MORE THAN THE MARXISTS DO. That’s the reality.

    • justquitnow

      Gee…how did I know it come down to marxists?
      Stupid cultists….derp.

      I tell you what….don’t reply and I will reply for you in the morning. I can your write your stupid cult sh*t better than you can.

      • reader

        :) I bet you get a kick out of what you write. Chukcha is not a reader, chukcha is a writer, as they used to joke in the old country.

  • PouponMarks

    The Marxist/Communist/Progressive/Liberal subversives have created a fom of addictive/dysfunctional behavior like a pimp or a drug dealer does to his victims. Once they are psychologically broken and reduced, a sick sort of self interested paternalism is exercised and the victim retrogressed back to an infantile bygone state and comportment. The spirit is killed or stolen, the victims are shells, their thoughts never quite completed and actualized without the filter the overlord requires.