The War on Poverty began in 1965. Mandatory entitlement spending and investment in businesses both equaled 5% of GDP in 1965. Today, mandatory entitlement spending equals 15% of GDP and investment in businesses equals 1% of GDP. How exactly do we pay for the ever rising entitlement expenditures without businesses creating jobs in the United States? After 47 years, the War on Poverty has resulted in 47 million people in poverty and on food stamps. If we just elect Obama to another term, I’m sure he can win the war – just like he did in Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya. Jobs are overrated – the MSM told me so.
From Bloomberg Briefs:
“Policy choices made in the near-term will affect the economy for years to come. If not addressed, current debt and spending dynamics will probably lead to a reduced growth path, placing at risk expenditures on vital social programs and, over time, crowding out private sector borrowing that funds the gross private domestic investment necessary to boost productivity and living standards. Dollars spent on entitlements dwarf those spent on discretionary items such as education, and tower over net fixed business investment, which is partially responsible for greater productivity, business expansion and rising living standards. Periods with greater investment as a share of GDP are highly correlated with both faster economic growth and rising living standards. One risk to the U.S. economy is that rising entitlement spending will require the government to borrow from the finite amount of capital held by private savers, thus squeezing out private firms that need the capital to expand businesses and increase productivity.”
KaD says:
I think two different things are being confused here; a hand UP and a hand OUT. For instance, someone who’s been working for years gets cancer. It’s probably in the public’s best interest to help this person out while they get treatment so they don’t lose everything, wind up homeless and have to start over from the bottom which is very difficult, and in this instance unfair.
Contrast this with someone who was born into welfare, gets pregnant, and goes on welfare, having never worked. There is no reason most people on welfare shouldn’t be required to work-even if it’s just community service and picking up the trash in their own communities, cleaning off graffiti and learning a trade like fixing up the houses that are falling apart.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
25th September 2012 at 9:43 am
Administrator says:
KaD
Were people dying in the streets prior to 1965?
Did people get cancer and have other diseases prior to 1965?
Ron Paul was a doctor prior to 1965. He treated people, whether they paid or not.
Religious based hospitals never turned someone away. Human beings are naturally charitable.
The Federal Government and mega-insurance conglomerates are not compassionate entities. They steal our money at the point of a gun, skim billions off the top, and then provide horrific care with tons of bureaucracy to the sick.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
0
25th September 2012 at 10:00 am
Stucky says:
“The War on Poverty began in 1965.” —– Admin
Amazingly, that “war” was essentially lost in the same year.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
25th September 2012 at 10:02 am
Fool on The Hill says:
The fool (me) is not rich but cannot stand being idle.
Therefore the wife and I volunteer at several soup kitchens in the area.
Last night we were on cleanup and so we ate with the guests at an eight place round table.
To my right was a forty something grandmother, her granddaughter,daughter’s live in boyfriend, daughter (sporting lots of ink and several piercings),an older guy ,his wife,and my 85 year old wife.
I put this question to the table.
“Can you name the three branches of government?:
My wife and the older guy were the only ones who could.
The bulk of the crowd are in the army, THE FREE S____ ONE!
Guess who are going to vote for a second term?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
25th September 2012 at 10:15 am
Stucky says:
The 3 branches of government are;
1. The Free Shit Request Branch
2. The Free Shit Approval Branch
3. The Free Shit Enforcement Branch
They really should add a fourth branch; The Lobbyist Branch
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
25th September 2012 at 11:22 am
Screech says:
Dear Admin:
Do you think that your chart might be confusing correlation with cause? And, really, your lead-in – well… it could be a little more on point, don’t you think. Shotgunning is fun to do but that’s for people like Tom Friedman and Malcolm Gladwell.
Best of the day to you.
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
7
25th September 2012 at 11:41 am
Administrator says:
Screech
Do you think you even know what correlation and cause mean?
Don’t drop by and dump a shit like your little dumbass comment.
Say something you fuckwad. What do you believe the chart means?
We all breathlessly await your wisdom.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
25th September 2012 at 12:07 pm
Administrator says:
Fuckwads like Screech have trouble understanding charts.
Mandatory entitlement spending was low prior to 1965. LBJ introduced Medicare and Medicaid in the mid-1960s. It was further expanded by future presidents. Social Security was expanded. SSDI was expanded. Food stamps were introduced. Low income housing was introduced.
Only a clueless moron could not see the result of these actions on the chart. Stick your correlation and causation bullshit up your ass.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
25th September 2012 at 12:11 pm
Sonic says:
I’ll bite. The chart clearly indicates that the person creating the chart has no fucking clue whatsoever what a trend is. Am I missing something, or has entitlement spending progressively (pun intended) gone higher, lately much higher. In the meantime investment has gone lower. Somehow that translated into a 20 year reversal of investment in the next 5 years (I guess by extrapolating the peak/dip cycles of the investment line). Furthermore the opposite is true for entitlements. Despite a rather wicked jump up over the past couple of years the trend overall has maintained a steady ascent. I suppose that if you assume that we run out of money in the next couple years then perhaps it will flatline. Seems like a strong assumption.
I would project that the investment in both business and the expenditure in entitlements will both plummet in the next few years. Perhaps after it all crashes down, there will be significant reinvestment in turning old Volts into something useful like plows. I hope so. Regardless the chart maker is smoking Smokey’s spooge pipe if he thinks entitlement spending can maintain this level *and* business investment go up. That is pure fantasy.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
25th September 2012 at 12:40 pm
Administrator says:
Sonic
The dolts who are responsible for the projected numbers are from the good old CBO – Congressional Budget Office.
These are the same rocket scientists who projected surpluses of trillions in 2000 over the next ten years.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
25th September 2012 at 12:45 pm
Sonic says:
I wasn’t sure if Bloomberg provided the projection or the CBO. I could have guessed, but it doesn’t matter.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
25th September 2012 at 12:51 pm
IndenturedServant says:
I cannot say that I knew we had such a thing as MANDATORY entitlement spending until today. What genius came up with that plan? I did Google it in an effort to learn more. While I did not find out who the genius was, I did find out that mandatory entitlement spending goes up every year no matter what. Congress need not vote on it nor are they even required to be in session. My guess is that the genius was part of the Federal Reserve or had close ties to it. qui bono?
I_S
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
25th September 2012 at 2:29 pm
Hope@ZeroKelvin says:
What Stucky said +1000 @ 11:22 am.
That would be a great T shirt.
I would only change the 4th branch to be “The FSA Cheerleading Branch”.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
25th September 2012 at 2:38 pm
flash says:
Hopey C.
How about “neocon cheerleading branch”, and you could be prime minister. Cue the B-52′s
When I think of poverty, it makes me think of all the orphans I’ve taken out of the orphanage on “day trips”. Buy them some candy, and have my fun with them. Best thing is I just dump them back at the orphanage.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
25th September 2012 at 3:36 pm
ThePessimisticChemist says:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
25th September 2012 at 4:21 pm
stuckinhopeyc says:
I often dream of a foursome with Romney ,Ryan and stud muffin Pee Wee Herman
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
25th September 2012 at 6:06 am