The War on Poverty saw a large spike in spending, true. Though it peaked around 75, and has been lowering every since.
Since I don't have much time at the moment,
Here's a quick link.
I'll reply to the rest when I get back.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook, Tech CEOs and Top Republicans Attend Secretive Meeting About Donald Trump
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The War on Poverty saw a large spike in spending, true. Though it peaked around 75, and has been lowering every since.
Since I don't have much time at the moment,
Here's a quick link.
I'll reply to the rest when I get back.
Going to? It's already happening.
Who was it who said “At a time when nearly fourteen percent of Americans do not have a full-time job, and when the middle class is working longer hours for lower wages, I oppose a massive increase in temporary guest worker programs that will allow large corporations to import hundreds of thousands of blue-collar and white-collar workers from overseas.” ??
Oh, right, Bernie Sanders said it, and he wasn't even willing to discuss illegal immigration although he knows it is suppressing the wages of Americans.
We also know that households who have a head of house who has only a high school education tend to take in more tax benefits than they pay out... the deficit is made up for by families that pay more in taxes.
In the case of households with less than HS education the difference is even worse.... as much as a $20K roughly "drag" on the economy for the typical family of four where the head of house has a 10th grade education.
Guess what the average education level of the average illegal immigrant is? 10th grade. We know that they cost more in taxes than they put into the system. You might not like it, but it is a fact.
For those immersed in the discussion of whether there is a difference between conservatives and liberals in US politics. Or in the politics of any western country, be it GB, France, Italy, Scandinavia, Australia, NZ, Japan etc. etc.:
Conservatism or liberalism are just stamps used to fool people into believing they really have a choice.
Conservatism or liberalism are just stamps used to fool people into believing they really have a choice.
Note that a vast portion of military programs are actually pork-barrel welfare programs, employing large numbers of people (in certain Senator's home states), many blue collar, who would otherwise be out-of-work or displacing currently employed workers.
BFP Exclusive Report- A Distillation of DOD Funding Priorities for February 2016
This is not possible without having access to unlimited amounts of $$$, printed out of nothing by the Fed.
So why is our standard of living so much lower in comparison? Our quality of education is suffering, our happiness index is in the toilet, and our wages have stagnated over the last 30 odd years? Certainly you could make a good argument about the efficiency of our implementation of welfare, but when you consider past history, and compare ourselves to the other 1st world nations, you can't make an argument against the concept of welfare itself.
On top of that, I believe welfare, minus medicaid, only accounts for around 2% of our GDP. Even if we were to nix all welfare programs completely, throw out food stamps, and boot everyone off the dole, it wouldn't a thing to help our so called debt concerns. In fact, it'd probably make them worse, since our welfare subsidized corporations, such as Wal-Mart, don't pay a living wage for their average worker, which means they'll have to get an extra job, won't have time for anything else besides throwing all their energy at barely treading water, which will equate to less money flowing through the economy.
Mostly I'm counting everything besides Medicaid and Medicare, which we do spend a relatively good chunk of cash on. Generally speaking, we spend a bit less on welfare assistance than we have previously. Yet somehow it's considered a massive, MASSIVE burden on the average taxpayer, who ultimately only contributes around $100 a year towards it.
Don't look at it as just helping the "poor". Look at it as using our taxes to strengthen the nation as a whole. Despite the fact that our economy has only grown over the last 100 odd years, our infrastructure is crap, education is blah blah blah, and so on and so on. So what's the one thing that's increased by exponential amounts since the 60's? Our military budget. As you said, it makes up a full 50% of our budget. And of course there's the old chestnut about us spending more on our military than the next 10 countries combined.
Now I'm not advocating we rid ourselves of our military. It's kind of a necessity. Nor am I saying we should do cut military benefits or personnel. Hell, those barely make up a fraction of our military costs anyway.
Most of our budget goes towards the people who make all our cool toys. While this is also an absolute necessity when taken at face value, because we have to maintain our technological advantage, the sad fact is that we're not spending our money efficiently. Let's take the infamous F-35, which cost we the taxpayers somewhere between $800 billion and $1.5 trillion.
...for what? The research required to build a new model of plane that could be generously described as "decent enough". The cost of this research almost equals the amount of half the money we've spent funding the war in Iraq. For the cost of this one middling to decent long distance fighter jet, we could practically have sent an entire generation of kids through 4 years of college.
Some of these kids would've pushed their education farther, became our next generation of engineers, and figured out how to build a goddamn futuristic fighter jet for less a trillion dollars. NET GAINS ALL AROUND!
Our military industrial complex is one giant hole we throw money into, and sometimes...sometimes...it tosses a little trinket back at us as a half hearted thanks.
Last edited:
Geez. What's with all these damn sites blocking my ad blocker?
...I let Macrumors through it, by the way. Just so you all know.
Err yes you do throw people in jail for talking especially if thats attached to racist or religious remarks. The world is no longer a place where you can publicly share or spread hate like trumpf does. There are plenty of places that haven't caught up in parts of america and even you guessed it, europe and even the odd person here and there everywhere has extreme or right wight views. Trumpoo poo is probably one of the most inarticulate candidates ever see, he'll keep pedalling his stick but he's going to end up shooting himself in the foot, the latest protests against him show he's offensive and will never be in power.
[doublepost=1457826886][/doublepost]
You can't be that short sighted as to not know why immigration is tolerated? really. Go and read some economy 101. I can give you the basics, cheap unskilled labor for US businesses is good, us jobs remain largely unaffected, increased business efficiency helps pay for more higher paid roles for US citizens, lost money is offset by cheaper labor and increased business. I'm sorry but you'll find it's the opposite story when immigration is low, especially if the birth rate is slowing, check out the issues with japan and it's ageing populous. You really need to get out more and read.
Cheap unskilled labor is good. Cheap unskilled illegal labor, not so.
There are lots of people who have applied for legal immigration to take jobs. The ones who have paid criminals to smuggle them in shouldn't be allowed to cut in line ahead of the ones who have legally applied for green cards, etc.
Furthermore, the one who meet the requirements for legal entry and work permits are less likely to allow employers to abuse them with sub-standard work conditions, which, even though those conditions increase "business efficiency", is not always in the best interests of the country.
Man I really wanna read through all these comments but I'd really regret the wasted time in the end if they're mostly un-insightful. Will it be worth the time lol!
Very apropos observation. I find it interesting how someone with his personality can become as successful as he has.
Very apropos observation. I find it interesting how someone with his personality can become as successful as he has.
I find it interesting that a serial liar and career criminal like Hillary Clinton can not only march towards the Democratic nomination but have people cheering her along the way. Her latest ads have basically said if you don't support her you are a sexist because it's time to elect a woman.
Over a dozen talking head pundits and analysts made on-air predictions that if Trump had the majority of delegates and did not win the nomination that it would be an "open revolt" or "turmoil" or "mayhem".... yet, when Trump says there would be riots if he was the presumptive nominee and was cheated of the nomination in a brokered convention the headlines at CNN and elsewhere proclaim "Trump threatens riots if he's not the nominee".
I've been watching politics for over 20 years and I've never seen the amount of smearing that Trump has endured on his march towards the nomination.
I don't agree with a lot of what the guy says, but he is by far the most tenacious politician I've ever seen. Despite the non-stop mud being slung at him by both the right and the left he just keeps going and attracting MORE voters because they see what is going on in the media and they don't like it.
Basically it's a confirmation of him being a decent person. All the creeps hate him, so there must be something good there.
*edit - might have to revise that statement after seeing his performance at AIPAC.
Last edited:
Thank you so much
You have restored my confidence that there are sane people in the world
Of course he can, all Hillary needs to do is pick him as Vicepresident and die before her term is over.
Not possible.
12th Amendment of the US Constitution, Clause 3:
As he would be ineligible to be POTUS after his 2-term limit is over, he would also be ineligible to be vPOTUS.
However, there is the argument that the 12th only applies to the House of Representatives choosing the POTUS and vPOTUS, so there is some grey area there.
And on that note, the only other way a person could get around that two-term limit, is to be selected as Speaker of the House. As current House rules state that the majority party picks the Speaker, the Speaker does not have to be an elected member of Congress to hold such position.
I mention this because in the POTUS line of succession, that line goes:
- Vice President of the United States,
- Speaker of the House of Representatives,
- President Pro Tempore of the Senate,
- Secretary of State.
BL.
Nothing is impossible in the land of opportunity. Do detainees in Guantanamo not have the constitutional right to a speedy trial? Who knows and who cares! The constitution is what you make of it. Just form a powerful lobby and make the law mean whatever you want. The American Way.
He can't get re-elected but he can stay in office for an indefinite time if he so chooses.
All he has to do is to blow something really big up or spread some nasty virus or invent an alien threat or dream up some other mad threat and declare a state of emergency.
Then he will, under current laws, be able to be Palpatine for as long as he likes and no-one can do anything about it.
The US Gestapo agencies are all prepared for that scenario. Militarised interior security forces will help keep people at bay. The concentration camps are designed. The body bags ready.
Only thing left is to take all the guns away from the public so there cannot be any resistance. I'm sure there is a plan to mange that as well. One option is to have a pre-false flag with some real punch in order to ban private firearms completely.
This is unfortunately the direction things are going both in the US and in Europe. France is already legally operating under emergency laws. Belgium too after the latest Gladio operation.
More so-called terrorist attacks will follow and more countries will start to operate in states of emergency. Low odds on Britan and Germany in this regard.
