Election 2020

Bloomberg's Promise of a New 'War on Poverty' Echoes Past Government Failures

"There has to be a war on poverty," says Michael Bloomberg. Does he know how the last one turned out?


During his first inaugural address in 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson declared a no-holds-barred federal "war on poverty" that promised not only to improve poor people's economic conditions—but to address the fundamental causes of their despair. "Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty," he said, "but to cure it, above all, to prevent it."

LBJ promised to help poor Americans become self-sufficient, but mostly touted an array of familiar-sounding proposals—hiking the minimum wage, investing more money in public schools, building public-housing projects and creating new or expanded income-support programs. His economic-development ideas promised to uplift African-Americans in urban slums, Native Americans on reservations and whites in Appalachia.

It sounded so high-minded, yet what Johnson later termed "The Great Society" left a trail of destruction that rivaled his other initiative—the Vietnam War. Poverty rates are lower today than in 1964, but that's "despite" the government's war on it. America now suffers from rates of dependency and family breakdown that are partially the result of Johnson's not-so-great ideas. Despite these "investments" and social programs, poverty—especially in California—is as intractable as ever.

Why the short remembrance of the Johnson administration? Apparently, most Democratic presidential candidates—and one in particular—seem to have missed the lessons of the past 56 years. In his presidential campaign's recent tour in California, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said "my job will be to move all Americans ahead, and that includes committing our country to new and innovative ways to combat poverty. There has to be a war on poverty."

One of the weird things about getting older is listening to people revive old discredited slogans that make me shudder when I hear them. Republicans push an "America First" agenda now, which brings back echoes of the 1940s-era pro-fascist movement. California Democrats talk about fighting "economic crimes," which has a strange Soviet-like ring to it. And now a 2020 presidential candidate talks about a "war on poverty" without any sense of the past.

I'm all for "innovative ways to fight poverty," but most of Bloomberg's ideas—hiking the minimum wage, dumping billions of dollars in public-housing programs and the like—are retrograde, not innovative. I like his plan to ease zoning restrictions, which will help boost development in urban areas, but beyond that it's more of the same-old failed policies of dumping government money on the problem. He hasn't learned a thing.

In fact, Bloomberg made his remarks in Stockton, where poverty rates top 20 percent. The city's young and idealistic mayor, Michael Tubbs, had endorsed Bloomberg earlier in the day. Tubbs' best-known idea is called Universal Basic Income, whereby the city provides $500 a month to a few dozen families with no strings attached. The pilot project is privately funded, but supporters see Stockton's plan as an experiment that could be replicated elsewhere using public funds.

That epitomizes the old "war on poverty" approach, which is based on the idea that the only reason many people are poor is that they don't have any money. Give them money or housing or whatnot and, viola, problem solved. Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way. "While the state of neediness we call poverty does involve a lack of material resources, it also involves a mass of psychological and moral problems, including weak motivation, lack of trust in others, ignorance, irresponsibility, self-destructiveness, short-sightedness, alcoholism, drug addiction, promiscuity and violence," explained a still-timely 1999 piece by the free-market Foundation for Economic Education.

In my first newspaper job, I covered a plan by the city's officials to build scattered-site housing—a major initiative during Bill Clinton's administration—and rent them on the cheap to poor people. Plopping subsidized suburban-style houses in the middle of settled working-class neighborhoods often undermined the surrounding city blocks for a pretty obvious reason.

You can give a poor person a middle-class house, but that doesn't automatically give them the social skills to turn them into bona fide members of the middle class. A 2016 article in the liberal publication Vox looked at Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood in Bloomberg's own city and found that despite all the money and good intentions, the situation now is almost indistinguishable from what it was when the Great Society concentrated its efforts there.

California has the nation's highest poverty rates, according to the Census Bureau's cost-of-living-adjusted measure, even though it offers the most generous income-support programs and the most aggressive minimum-wage and anti-poverty laws. Johnson was right about one thing, though, when he said in his address that "lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty, but the symptom."

Instead of offering failed multitrillion-dollar ideas from the past, Bloomberg and others need to focus on boosting public-school competition and reducing regulations that impede job growth in struggling cities such as Stockton. That's the kind of "war on poverty" that's worth fighting.

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

NEXT: Review: Little Women

Election 2020 Michael Bloomberg Poverty Urban poverty Lyndon Johnson

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

263 responses to “Bloomberg's Promise of a New 'War on Poverty' Echoes Past Government Failures

  1. Like the War On Drugs, America’s 50-year experiment with a War On Poverty has failed. The sooner we acknowledge this, the faster we can change strategy and deal with the root causes.

    1. The thing is, it ain’t the government’s business to ‘deal with the root causes’. For one thing, the root causes are probably complicated and subtle, and government may do complicated, but it sucks at subtle.

      If government would stick to basics – maintain the roads, run the courts, defend the borders, deliver the mail – it would accomplish more and cost less.

      1. The government is one of the root causes, so it can, indeed, deal with those factors.

        1. Being born is the root cause. You start off in poverty. What should be examined are the causes of wealth, not the causes of poverty. Because there is only one cause: being alive.

          1. Formerly rich Venezuelans disagree.

            1. What happened in Venezuela was the causes wealth were destroyed, and man returned to his default state of poverty.

              Would you say that blowing up your car causes you to walk?

              You’ve got the cause and effect backwards.

              1. The forum was so much better when you could just flaunce around pontificating stupidly like that lolololo

              2. The root cause of poverty is the Big Bang. Is that what you’re shooting for sarc?

                The proximate causes are many, including government, laziness, etc.

                1. Some oriole are just stupid and self destructive too. I know people like that.

          2. Being born isnt the root cause. Allowing people to stay on government welfare is the issue.

            Key Findings

            Increased time spent in poverty is associated with lower chances an individual will exit poverty, which ranges from 56% after one year poor to 13% for those in poverty for 7 or more years.

      2. We don’t need government to deliver the mail, or maintain the roads. Their courts aren’t so great either.

  2. If there had been an actual war on poverty, it would have worked out perfectly; but LBJ did not have a single poor person shot.

    1. Vietnam (both sides) begs to differ.

    2. These days we can count on them to shoot each other. Maybe we could subsidize guns and ammo for the worst neighborhoods. Maybe we already do…

  3. Trump’s pro-growth agenda is already addressing poverty.

    1. UCrawford…POTUS Trump gets credit from me for reducing the effects of poverty in the sense that there are plenty of jobs out there. If you are able-bodied, there is a job for you. You can make money and support yourself. And that is phenomenal. Because we were told for nearly a decade that there was some kind of ‘New Normal’ for gainful employment.

      What is missing, though, is addressing the root causes of poverty.

      1. “Trump’s pro-growth agenda”


        If Drumpf’s agenda is pro-growth, why is Charles Koch only up a pathetic $2.75 billion this year?


        1. Oops! Replied to the wrong comment.

          1. Hey!! An accurate statement from OBL.

            1. The most truthful thing OBL will say all decade.

        2. Haha…this made me laugh at work. Stop it. 🙂

        3. So OBL, Koch’s portfolio increase also caused an increase in poverty this year – how so?

      2. “What is missing, though, is addressing the root causes of poverty.”

        Which are?

        1. Poverty of the soul?

        2. the root causes of poverty

          Young women making babies with losers before completing a marketable education and getting married. If young women would finish their schooling, not spread their legs for criminals and addicts, and not have a baby until after they married an employable man to father it, most poverty would disappear. There is little the government can do to foster this behavior. The best it can do is to stop subsidizing the reproduction of ignorant and destitute young women.

          1. If only there were an organization to promote that goal. We could call it Planned Parenthood!

            1. Planned Parenthood and other efforts have enjoyed significant success. Unmarried motherhood among poor teens is way down since the 1980s. It could be a lot lower if the subsidies for bastardy were eliminated.

          2. I live in a pretty wealthy area, but I wouldn’t necessarily say that hard work is what made most people here rich, rather they were born into families that already had money, some of which certainly had a good work ethic. These kids then went to elite colleges and most of them majored in liberal arts, so what made the difference, on top of their upbringing, was the connections they made there, which helped them get into law or business school, or line up investors to start a business. Poor people don’t have the friends in high places, and if mom had you when she was 16, you’re probably going to do the same thing. No government program can ever fix this.

            1. No government program can ever fix this.

              But we can end the government programs that facilitate it.

            2. Actually, studies have shown that the IQ of a child is a better correlation for their life success than how wealthy their parents were, single parent/married parents, or anything else… The trick about IQ is that it’s mostly inherited from your parents. Hence intelligent and well to do people birth children that are going to be intelligent and well to do, and then they get the icing on the cake of having it easy getting there to boot.

              This is all on average of course. Obviously getting a leg up helps, and smart people can have dumb kids, etc. But stats show the above to be true generally speaking.

                1. And none of that disproves the FACT that INTELLIGENCE is a greater determining factor for success in life.

                  I never said nothing else makes any difference or helps somebody along. Obviously it does. However a really smart kid born to druggie parents will still, on average, be more successful than a stupid kid born to well to do parents. The studies have been done.

                  So GTFO with your commie bullshit. Peoples own ability is the #1 factor in success in the world, and unfortunately it is largely something people are either born with or not.

        3. Being born. The natural state of humans is poverty. Capitalism, technology, innovation, and hard work are what leave poverty behind.

          1. I was not born poor. Your hypothesis is flawed.

            1. You mean your parents were not poor when you were born. You were.

              1. Trust fund baby!!

                Actually I have no trust fund, but poverty is generally calculated on a household basis, so not poor.

                1. Shifting the goal posts is no way to win arguments, son.

                  You were born poor. The only thing which kept you from starving to death was your parents, who were rich by historical standards, and worked for that status,

                  1. Pretending words don’t have meanings no way to win arguments, alphabet troll.

                    1. Writing sentences no verbs no way to write.

                  2. I am using the conventional way of ascribing poverty while you are using pedantry.

                    1. How convenient those moving goalposts are!

          2. and hard work

            You were right up to that point. Hard work is for losers. The poorest workers do the hardest work.

            1. Not all hard work is manual labor. If you think entrepreneurs and venture capitalists and business owners don’t work hard, you must be a Progressive.

              1. Wealthy entrepreneurs and highly paid businessmen tell themselves they work hard because they suffer insecurity about whether they deserve their prosperity. They needn’t. They should feel pride that they’ve been able to use their talents to ascend to a position from which they can marshal others of lesser talent to do the hard work for them.

                1. You are ignorant if you think they don’t work hard.

                  1. You are ignorant if you think they work as hard as the working poor—ignorant of what “hard” is.

                    1. Why don’t you provide us an example of how you think entrepreneurs and highly paid businessmen work, and show us how they don’t work hard.

                      We all know ditch diggers work hard. According to you, we don’t know how lazy entrepreneurs and highly paid businessmen are. Why don’t you provide us some examples?

                    2. It’s on you to provide examples of what you mean by entrepreneurs working hard.
                      You gave examples of the poor working hard, but curiously not the position you’re stumping for.

                    3. Jack, you’re the one claiming that the poorest workers work the hardest. That defies common sense, where generally working more produces more. I realize finding such counter-intuitive references is hard because of their non-existence, so don’t fret, I won’t expect you to do any such hard work.

                    4. Entrepreneurs work smarter since they are remunerated more for their work. Who judges what is harder? Nebulous concept. Or maybe you favor the labor theory of value?

                    5. And now you move the goalposts again by saying it is impossible to compare how hard different people work!

                      If anyone is espousing Marx here, it’s you who thinks hard work by poor people is harder than other people’s hard work. Power to the Proletariat! Hard working poor people unit, you have nothing to lose but the meaningless label I stick on you!

                    6. generally working more produces more

                      That is perhaps the most simple-minded statement I have ever read here. Maybe you should review the history of agriculture. Or mining—you won’t see large gangs of slaves at most mines anymore.

                    7. Vernon, you’re a retard.

                      First off, higher paid people generally do work that floor sweepers are not intellectually capable of doing in the first place. Scarcity of resources (smart people) makes that more valuable.

                      Second, most high paid jobs are highly stressful. A janitor leaves for the day and is truly off work… Not so for a programmer, engineer, manager, CEO, etc.

                      Third, highly paid people tend to work a crap ton of hours. I’ve known plenty of people who worked 80+ hour weeks at their “cushy” white collar jobs or for their own business. Poor people may do this if they work multiple jobs, but not usually.

                      So you can take your commie bullshit and shove it. I’ve done physical jobs, and stressful mental jobs… In a lot of ways I preferred the physical jobs! Soooo much easier really. But I’m willing to suffer more on the mental strain for more money, so there ya have it. If flipping burgers paid MD money there is no way in hell I would choose to be an MD!

                    8. most high paid jobs are highly stressful

                      Boo-fucking-hoo. Take another Xanax.

                    9. Vernon is ignorant of his ignorance.

                    10. Yeah, his level of stupid is epic.

                      He is as dumb as Tony, but not nearly as likeable or amusing.

        4. The root cause of poverty is it’s definition.

          In the USA, if you are in the lowest 20% family income level, you are poor. If you involuntarily miss one meal a month, you are “struggling with hunger”.

          In North Korea, no one is poor, not even those that are starving to death.

        5. One thing overlooked in the poverty debate is that many people are willing to let themselves live in “poverty”.
          They may not like it, and they would prefer to be more financially comfortable, but they’re not willing to make the effort or sacrifices necessary to improve their lot.
          Just like some people who are willing to settle for a middle class or working class life style, instead of aspiring to become wealthy, some people are willing to live below what the government calls the “poverty line”.
          In my opinion, that’s just human nature and no government program will ever change it.

      3. Trump IS addressing to root causes of poverty; he’s attacking the Progressive Left at every turn. With their policies over the last century, the Progressives have made themselves one of the major causes of poverty, and the sooner they can be driven from positions of power, the better.

        1. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

        2. They need victims; economic victims, racial victims, gender victims….otherwise they couldn’t claim “vote for us less the bad guys win and usher in “the end of civilization as we know it?”*

          Nancy Pelosi, and three occasions that I know of

          1. Leftism = munchausen by proxy

        3. Its true. The progtards have destroyed the nuclear family, any sense of civics, or moral values, including the concept of a work ethic. They encourage the poor to covet, and fan the flames of class warfare and racial divide.

          Progressivism essentially represents the seven deadly sins. They need to go.

      4. “What is missing, though, is addressing the root causes of poverty”

        Natural Selection?

      5. What is missing, though, is addressing the root causes of poverty.

        There is essentially no involuntary absolute poverty in the US.

        “Poverty” in the US is relative poverty, i.e., a measure of income inequality. The only known way of eliminating relative poverty is to make almost everybody dirt poor.

        1. Biggest health threat to American poor is obesity. Too much tasty food and leisure time. Pretty grim.

  4. Poverty is caused by Republican policies that inhibit economic growth. This is especially true in the Drumpf era — his high-tariff / low-immigration agenda is responsible for what Paul Krugman calls a global recession with no end in sight.

    Once Bloomberg or any other Democrat is in the White House, the Koch / Reason open borders program will dramatically improve the situation. I expect poverty to be literally eradicated during the next President’s first term.


    1. OBL, A new NPR poll indicates that hispanics overwhelmingly support Bernie Sanders. Sanders is the new candidate for open borders.
      No schadenfreude on Reason, Bloomberg or Koch, that would be wrong, Orange Man is worse. Jacobin/Sanders voters will come around to free market capitalism and the constitution as natural libertarians someday.

  5. “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life.”

    Poverty is the default state of man. Consider the average standard of living throughout history. Someone (in America) living in poverty today is fabulously rich compared to a few hundred years ago, and everything before that.

    Problem with teaching a man to fish is that after that he no longer depends on you. You no longer have any power over him. That’s why none of these “War on Poverty” schemes will ever work. The people who administer them are power seekers. Why teach people the skills to be independent when you can increase your power by fostering dependence?

    1. Giver a man a fish and he eats that day. Teach a man to fish and he’ll probably stop bothering you for a long time, but his wife may not be too happy.

      1. Give a man fire and he’ll be warm for the night. Set a man on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life

          1. No surprise that the image of burning someone alive appeals to you.

            1. LOL

              So now jokes are bad if they’re not “nice” or something??? Personally, I would reserve literal burning to death for only the most vile people. Serial killers, child rapists, lawyers, etc. Good people shouldn’t be burned to death 🙂

  6. Poverty cannot be defeated. It’s the default state of man. The focus should be on the creation of wealth. This “War on Poverty” is little more than thinly veiled socialism/communism. It strives for equality. Thing is, equality settles down to the lowest common denominator, which of course is poverty. Kinda ironic.

    1. Poverty has already been defeated in the US. That is, an absolute lack of sufficient resources to lead a long and healthy life. We still have scarcity (which cannot be defeated) but not poverty.

      What remains in the US is relative poverty or income inequality. That is simply mathematically impossible to eliminate in any functioning economy.

      1. “That is simply mathematically impossible to eliminate in any functioning economy.


        1. But it’s incorrect to say that relative poverty is “the default state of man”, as you did.

          The default state of man is absolute poverty with no relative poverty.

          The state of man in a well-functioning economy is no absolute poverty but increasing relative “poverty”.

          1. The default state of man is poverty. Man has nothing until he creates it. We start with nothing. If we do nothing we have nothing. That’s the default. What should be examined is how wealth is created, not poverty. I’m agreeing with you in that when wealth creation is allowed, it lifts everyone up. But that wealth creation is what should be examined, not poverty.

            1. See this is why people laugh at you and why I constantly make fun of you you repeat stupid platitudes that you don’t understand and then when you get corrected simply double down on the same stupid platitudes.

              We can see you do not understand the arguments and have Simply Red material and are regurgitating it because you’re not even addressing the argument which refutes you you’re simply repeating platitudes

              1. Ahaahahaha auto correct is so dumb that sarc asks it for investing advice ahahahah

            2. Poverty is the absence of wealth like dark is the absence of light.

            3. The default state of man is poverty. Man has nothing until he creates it.

              What the f*ck is your problem? Are you reading impaired?

              I’m pointing out that your use of the term “poverty” is ambiguous: “poverty” can refer to absolute poverty or relative poverty, and the two behave in opposite ways.

              Use the correct term: The default state of man is absolute poverty with no relative poverty.

      2. +1000 NOYB2!

  7. Tax the rich, feed the poor, ’til there are no rich no more. The poor you shall have with you always.

    1. Give the people what they want when they want
      And they wants it all the time
      Give the people what they need when they need
      And the need is yours and mine


    2. But then all the plebes will be equal, and our overlords will feel good about what they accomplished [because we will all be dependent and keep them in power]

  8. The fact that some people don’t want to grapple with is a lot of people are doomed from birth.

    They’re defective. You ever wonder why one person can be born to a crackhead mother in a trailer park and go on to be a multi millionaire businessman… And another in an identical situation becomes a death row inmate after slinging meth for years and murdering somebody when a drug deal went wrong?

    It’s the person. Science has been increasingly proving that almost everything about our intelligence, personality traits, strengths and weaknesses, etc is simply genetic.

    In short, some people are doomed from birth. NOBODY wants to admit it, but it’s true. Everybody knows somebody who ALWAYS makes the wrong choice in every possible situation… And sane people shake their head and just don’t understand it. It’s because they’re defective people.

    Now don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of fluff on the margins. One person born to a crack head might become a total failure, where if that same person were born to a middle class family they might have ended up being a mediocre, but not completely horrible, person in life. There’s environmental play, but it’s not ALL environmental.

    So the truth is until we start genetically engineering these bad genes out of the species with designer babies or something, we’re always going to have blow it case losers.

    That said, obviously helping people “on the margins” by having a strong economy, low regulations, and forcing them to get off their duff whether they like it or not by eliminating the welfare state are all going to help to the degree they can. But there will still be perpetual losers.

    PS One thing I find interesting is that some of the personality types that are essentially useless in the modern world once served a purpose in a morn primitive society. The excessively aggressive, but not very bright, but big and strong as hell guys… They were the homeboys who killed people for the tribe. Or took down mammoths. The combo of genes they have just aren’t very useful nowadays, therein lies the problem.

    1. Brave New World.

    2. Know who else wanted to implement eugenics on a large scale?

      1. Margaret Sanger!!

        When can I expect the check for winning?

        1. Almost. I’m thinking of someone who was able to satisfy their want.

          1. Genghis Khan?

          2. Planned Parenthood?

      2. Who promoted and implemented eugenics? Sanger. Keynes. The Democratic party. The Princeton faculty.

        Of course, these days, we are more into dysgenics: forcibly transferring resources from successful parts of society to people who reproduce irresponsibly and can’t make ends meet. Dysgenics, like eugenics, is a pet project of Democrats, progressives, and academics.

        1. Yup, and this is one of the scariest things. We’re forcing the exact people who should be having kids to not have kids by taxing them to death to pay for morons kids. NOT a good thing.

          1. Middle-class families with dependent children pay some of the lowest real taxes of anyone in the US. Everyone’s taxes should be lower, but successful families are certainly not “taxed to death” compared to other types of households.

            1. Middle class families with children pay significant taxes.

              Single moms with little or no income pay no income and receive substantial amounts of government transfers.

            2. Do you literally know nothing?

              Here’s how it works genius:

              Irresponsible, low IQ morons pop out babies without thought for hwo they’ll pay for them. Intelligent people think these things through. 2 parent married couples are the highest earners in the country, hence pay the most taxes on average. They have to pay for the dumb peoples kids. Then all of a sudden when deciding if they can afford kid number 2/3/etc they run the numbers and see they can’t afford to do it responsibly, so don’t have them.

              That’s how it works. And the $50K to a couple hundred K a year tax payers are the ones who pay THE HIGHEST effective tax rates of all. They’re not being subsidized liked poorer people, and they’re not wealthy enough to utilize tax dodges like super wealthy people. This is a well known thing.

              I just keep waiting for you to be right about ONE SINGLE THING at some point. But I ain’t gonna hold my breath.

              1. Everything in that post is incorrect, other than that the poorest people with dependent children can receive benefits that exceed their taxes.

                1. Sorry, but impolitic as his post is, it’s essentially correct: upper middle class wage earning families, the top 20%, finance most of the federal government and social programs.

      3. Khan Noonien Singh?

      4. Did I ever say we should round people up and whack them or force sterilize anybody? No.

        Eugenics IS a real thing. I can’t stand when people say it is pseudo science. Heredity is a FACT of nature. You can improve the gene pool, or make it worse, depending on what’s going on with the people who are breeding.

        Anyway, I’m not for forcing anything. However, if people have the option of having kids that are tall, good looking, and have 50 IQ points over what they’re going to kick out naturally… Why wouldn’t they do it?

        AND why would people be against it??? Stupid people are literally the cause of almost every problem in the world. Crime, nanny state laws, welfare use, etc etc etc are all because of stupid people. With no more idiots the world would be a virtual paradise.

        1. “Crime, nanny state laws, welfare use, etc etc etc are all because of stupid people.”

          What planet are you from? The most damaging forms of crime, the most oppressive laws, welfare systems that foster failure and dependency, “etc etc etc”, are all the creations of bright, educated, highly capable people.

          1. The reason all those laws exist is to “protect the stupid people from themselves.” AND to buy votes from dumb people.

            If the average IQ were 20 points higher, we wouldn’t have a need for 90% of the laws on the books because common sense would make people just do the right thing. And there wouldn’t be anybody to sell the “free lunch” to, so those types of programs would be gone too.

            Crafty control freaks may be the ones who pen and pass these laws, but the laws only do them any good because the idiots are controlled by them.

            1. You live in a fantasy world.

            2. Germans had large pools of smart people in the 1930s. They started a war that led to over 50 million people dying.

    3. “The excessively aggressive, but not very bright, but big and strong as hell guys…”

      There’s thousands of personal trainers with this trait that do just fine

      1. I wasn’t trying to get into a full blown list with great detail, there are a lot of “types” that served a purpose that was widely needed until very recently… But the thing is, that type of person is far less in demand now than 25,000 years ago, or even 100 years ago.

        For getting chicks being big and ripped is still useful, but for basically everything else in society being smart will get you a lot further nowadays. There are ways to channel all the “archaic” traits into being useful in the modern world, like being a personal trainer or a career soldier, but they just don’t hold the same sway as back in ancient times. Being a big guy was damn useful for farming until the turn of the 20th century too, and 10,000 other jobs. We’ve replaced most of that with machinery, hence it’s lost much of its usefulness.

        That’s all I’m sayin’.

    4. The combo of genes they have just aren’t very useful nowadays, therein lies the problem.

      The fact that they aren’t very useful right now doesn’t mean they are “defective”. You can also likely not eliminate those trait even if you try; they are part of the human genetic toolbox.

      1. Bear in mind I’m not talking about the being a big dumb jock here. I’m talking more about proper defective people. Like the people that from the time they were 4 years old starting stealing everything they could, lying every chance they could, then beating people up to get their way, and eventually progress onto beating some old lady to death in an alley for $37 bucks in her purse so they can buy meth.

        Those people exist. They’re defective. There are true mental illnesses. That kind of stuff could be engineered out over a few generations. We will probably eventually be able to figure out the complexities of things to the point where we could eliminate extreme sloth and other lesser issues, given vast amounts of data analysis.

        1. You may think of those people as “defective”, but that kind of behavior may well be a survival trait in other circumstances.

          1. Yes and no.

            All those traits are actually good survival instincts in the RIGHT situation. Thing is, in normal people, they’re kept in check and only used when appropriate. I would have no problem stealing stuff from people in a true life and death situation. Or beating somebody to death to save my own life. But I would never do those things under normal circumstances.

            Freud liked studying crazy people because they exhibited the exact same traits that we all have in us, just to a super crazy extreme. A defective extreme.

            Granted, in a SUPER fucked situation, perhaps even that defective level might suit ones survival… Like in the middle of a brutal 30 year long civil war in a 3rd world country… But I think the extreme expressions are just a defectively high expression of normal traits based on unintentional, and unhelpful, mutations. Just like being born with that thing that makes people grow so tall they die young. It’s too much of what could have otherwise been a good and healthy thing.

            1. Granted, in a SUPER fucked situation, perhaps even that defective level might suit ones survival… Like in the middle of a brutal 30 year long civil war in a 3rd world country

              That’s been the normal state of humankind until the middle of the 20th century. That’s why these genes are so widespread.

              Genghis Khan didn’t become the ancestor of millions of people by being nice.

        2. That kind of stuff could be engineered out over a few generations.

          Your faith in science is touching but absurd.

          1. You obviously don’t read much about advancements in genetics do you buddy?

            They’ve been cataloging specific genes for personality traits for awhile now. They’ve now identified a few thousand genes that are related to intelligence too. With the power of modern computing they’re going to have all this shit sorted out in a decade or two. Then it’s just a question of letting people either pick from optimal naturally conceived embryos (like in Gattaca), or CRISPR editing that shit.

            The world would be an infinitely better place without dumb people and mental illness. I don’t see how anybody could disagree with this. Do you think crazy people and dumb people LIKE being defective? Do you think they like living their whole lives as losers because that’s all they’re capable? It’s a cruel life for a lot of those people. I would rather ensure future humans don’t have to suffer that pain.

          2. Depner, CRISPR technology has changed the rules of the game. You should look into it. Within 10 years, we will be engineering babies with specific genetic traits. CRISPR is species altering technology.

            1. And we have no idea what the long-term effects of that will be.

    5. “So the truth is until we start genetically engineering these bad genes out of the species with designer babies or something, we’re always going to have blow it case losers.”

      I would settle for not subsidizing stupidity.

      1. I would settle for not subsidizing self-destructive behavior. I don’t care if you have a high IQ if you’re unemployed, unmarried, and making babies at public expense.

        1. Stupid is as stupid does. I know some really smart stupid-people.

        2. The thing is moron, statistics show that those are all things that high IQ people are dramatically less likely to do. There is no such thing as 100%, but in terms of probability, dumb people do all the wrong things at dramatically higher rates. If you’d ever looked up any of the facts on this stuff when it’s been discussed before you would know this!

          1. statistics show that those are all things that high IQ people are dramatically less likely to do.

            And yet there is absolutely no public policy utility in trying sort out which losers and parasites have high IQs and which have low, so your “statistics” are worthless as policy guidance. The problem is behavior. If people with low IQs who earn enough money to support them want to have 10 children, that’s none of my, your, or the government’s business.

            1. Did I ever say we should??? No. Let them have at.

              1. No, you play it cute by repeatedly suggesting courses of action that would require horrific coercion, and then saying with a wink, “not that I think we should coerce anyone!” If you don’t believe any of your ideas should be followed, why waste time posting them?

    6. Your racist genetic theories are irrelevant to public policy regarding poverty. We know that there is a complex of behaviors that leads to long-term poverty. Our governments are currently subsidizing the reproduction of those who engage in these behaviors. This produces a constant crop of new impoverished children surrounded by impoverishing role models. If we stop subsidizing baby-making by those who engage in impoverishing behavior, poverty will be reduced. It doesn’t matter what their genetic makeup is.

      Now, get your ass back to Stormfront.

      1. You’re so fucking stupid. I’ve mentioned all this before, with links in some cases for fucktards like you, but you never seem to be willing to look at the stats.

        One, it doesn’t matter what race somebody is. Low IQ white people do as shitty as low IQ black people do, almost down to identical income levels actually.

        Two, people with a high IQ born into bad life circumstances almost always come out of it pretty well off. In short somebody with a 120 IQ born to blow it case parents will almost always do better in life than somebody with a 90 IQ born to wealthy parents. Numerous studies have proved this.

        The rub is that since intelligence is 60-80% inherited from your parents, you USUALLY end up with kids that are close to the average of their parents… Hence smart parents have smart kids, and dumb parents have dumb kids. The randomness of genes during conception throws in some curve balls of course, so its not 100%, but at the statistical level it very much holds true. THIS is why you see multigenerational poverty.

        I am 110% in favor of not subsidizing stupid people having babies… But whatever stupid people are still being born will indeed still be fuck ups, because it’s just how some people are born. Just like some people are born withing a leg, or blind, or whatever some people are born with slightly miswired brains.

        As I said above, I don’t advocate forcing anything on anybody… But the benefits to society of eliminating really dysfunctional people from the gene pool would be insane. Almost all crime would go away, we wouldn’t need welfare anymore because there would be nobody who needed it, people would vote for more intelligent things, and a million other perks.

        True equality in the way you likely believe does not exist in the world. We’re DNA machines, and the quality of that DNA varies from person to person.

        1. I am 110% in favor of not subsidizing stupid people having babies

          I am in favor of not subsidizing ANYONE’S reproduction. I am also not in favor of restricting anyone’s reproduction as long as they’re not asking me to pay for it. My respect for the rights of others does not depend on their IQ.

          But the benefits to society of eliminating really dysfunctional people from the gene pool would be insane. Almost all crime would go away, we wouldn’t need welfare anymore, and rainbows and kittens would come flying out of my ass.

          You are speculating far beyond the facts.

          1. Unfortunately, “not subsidizing anyone’s reproduction” is an impossibility in a democracy with universal suffrage. Voters will vote for guaranteed, large transfers to needy women and children, no matter the long term consequences, moral hazards, and perverse incentives that creates.

          2. Ugh. Again, I never said anything about forcing anybody to do anything one way or another, smart or dumb.

            I’m simply stating that if designer babies become a thing, and a larger percentage of people use said services, the world would become a vastly better place.

            And the science DOES support that. The average IQ of people in prison is about 85. There are very few people of average or above average intelligence in prison. There are damn near zero people of well above average intelligence. That’s because smart people have better options, and the intelligence to think through the repercussions of doing dumb shit.

            Basically ditto on the other stuff. Smart people aren’t perfect of course… But they make a hell of a lot better decisions than dumb people most of the time.

          3. Depner, please google ‘assortative mating’ and then get back to us. This is the essence of what vek is telling you.

    7. Seems like you forgot about football and pro wrestling.

      1. As I said above I wasn’t trying to cover everything under the sun… But in relative terms those types of people are less valuable now than ever before in history. They would have been the rockstars of their village 20,000 years ago… Now they work low rent jobs and are lower on the totem pole than some pencil necked accountant with glasses. The .0001% that become famous athletes are the exception.

  9. The failure of the war on poverty starts with a problem of definitions.

    US Progressives redefined poverty

    1. They define poverty relative to median income. This means economic growth, a rising tide lifting all boats, can’t shift the poverty numbers,

    2 They exclude all government aid/transfer payments when determining poverty. The government could spend infinite money on welfare and it wouldn’t move the official poverty statistics.

    They have literally defined poverty in a way that makes it impossible for the government to do anything to actually reduce poverty.

    1. “They define poverty relative to median income. This means economic growth, a rising tide lifting all boats, can’t shift the poverty numbers,”

      Right. What can shift the poverty numbers is to reduce the gap between the top and the bottom. To do this productivity must fall, and the rich must be fleeced. When socialists lament about too many choices, they mean we are too wealthy as a society. We might feel bad about ourselves because with so many choices, we worry we may have picked the wrong one. Wealth breeds discontent. The poorer we are the fewer choices we have, and the less of a chance there is that we might be concerned about choosing the wrong one.

      I’m fucking serious. This is what these people believe.

      The war on poverty is actually a war to bring poverty to everyone.

      1. “Right. What can shift the poverty numbers is to reduce the gap between the top and the bottom. To do this productivity must fall, and the rich must be fleeced.”

        Even that won’t do it. poverty is defined relative to the median (middle) income, not the top. reducing the gap between top incomes and the middle will have no impact on poverty rates. To do this, they have to fleece the middle class, not the rich.

        1. As long as someone has more than the median then they are defined as rich, just as anyone with less than the median is defined as living in poverty.

          The goal is to make the gap between the rich and poor as small as possible by eliminating the rich.

          When everyone is equal, when there is no difference between the rich and the poor, when everyone is equally poor, then poverty will have been conquered.

          1. Cyber leader: “Cybermen now occupy every land mass on this planet, but you need not fear. Cybermen will remove fear. Cybermen will remove sex and class and colour and creed. You will become identical. You will become like us. “


            Something like this is the ultimate goal of the progressives. To ‘upgrade’ us to humanity 2.0 where we are all equal and identical.

            Upgrades are compulsory.

    2. “They exclude all government aid/transfer payments when determining poverty. The government could spend infinite money on welfare and it wouldn’t move the official poverty statistics.”

      Whatever government spends it must first take from the top, reducing inequality, and thus reducing poverty.

      “They have literally defined poverty in a way that makes it impossible for the government to do anything to actually reduce poverty.”

      That’s exactly true. Because the goal isn’t to reduce poverty. It’s to reduce everyone to poverty. Then we will all be equal.

    3. US Progressives redefined poverty

      Just as they redefined racism as “white privilege; it never goes away, because then what would they do to pander votes?

  10. Sometimes I think this site and the Libertarian movement in general is nothing more than a peanut gallery taking shots at the 2 parties. What will we do to get more Libertarian minded candidates in the house, senate, local offices? Can we get a Libertarian Presidential candidate with some charisma to at least influence a national election even if they can’t win. Without it we are simply an exercise in political theory and of no practical use.

    1. There is a difference between libertarian and Libertarian. One is a philosophy, the other is a political party. They are not even close to the same thing.

      1. And the thing about small-l libertarians is that running for office is about the last thing they want to do. Most of them just want to be left alone, and being a public official is a surefire way to not get left alone.

        This is the problem with implementing small-l libertarianism, those best suited to do it have absolutely no interest in the job.

        1. Freedom isn’t free, which is why some Libertarians have to sacrifice and serve in office to get us back to tiny and limited government. Then future offices would be required for Libertarians to fill.

          Its a nasty business that has to be done. Like dying for this Constitutional Democratic Republic.

          1. Trying to achieve libertarianism through the political process is pointless; it’s just not going to happen even if you convince a majority of Americans that libertarianism is ultimately good for them.

            The way to achieve libertarianism is through changing the culture and the economy. Politics then follows.

        2. This is the problem with implementing small-l libertarianism, those best suited to do it have absolutely no interest in the job.

          Yep. Those who seek power want power. By definition. Those who don’t want power, small-l libertarians, do not seek power.

          Self selection puts the people who can be least trusted with power in positions of power.

    2. tlapp, who do you suggest meets the bill? And is said person available?

    3. Libertarians do take pot shots at the Party of slavery and the Republican party. Even fiscal conservatives are not necessarily for tiny and limited government like Libertarians. Many Republicans are for government to control social aspects. Democrats are not for social liberalism nor fiscal constraint.

      reason doesnt cover Libertarianism in any real way anymore and the MSM dont like to cover those successes, so you have to really look around for libertarian successes.

  11. Republicans push an “America First” agenda now, which brings back echoes of the 1940s-era pro-fascist movement.

    No, America First was an isolationist vision in the 1930s born of the experiences of the Great War. When fascism arose in Europe these people nevertheless wanted not to get entangled in foreign wars, even to fight fascism. Others were embracing fascism, such as FDRs NRA, and many others were identified with AF.

    1. Yeah, it’s pretty comical how some people throw around the word “fascist” these days. Hyperbole. Yawn.

      1. Even with Fascism not being well defined, the Socialists of Nazi Germany and Italy had a cornerstone of Fascism which was invasion of other nations.

        America and Donald “Hitler” Trump have scaled back US military actions since 2016.

        1. I think “hasn’t appreciably escalated” is probably closer to the truth.

        2. Fascism is fairly well defined as a form of socialism that (1) replaces class distinctions with nationality and (2) permits private ownership of the means of production under strong state control.

          Invasion of other nations, eugenics, racism, genocide, etc. are not an essential part of fascism, except to the degree that they are a frequent consequence of all left wing ideologies.

          1. Government Force above what is commonly accepted as regulation is prevalent in fascism.

            So if the government regime needs to unify under racism, you get government force to be racist.

            Same for nationalism….

            1. Excessive government power or forces is not a defining characteristic of fascism since it is shared with so many other forms of government, including some democracies.

    2. Mussolini was a darling of the Progressives for a long time, and even Hitler aroused curiosity. Stalin was the biggest hero though, and not because they were ignorant of his crimes, but because of them, because he dared to take the strong measures necessary to reshape man.

      And fascism was and still is socialist, the only difference being the insignificant distinction between owning and controlling the means of production.

      1. By that definition I would say the federal government practicing soft-fascism via regulatory agencies telling producers what they must and cannot do.

        1. Obamacare being the most glaring recent example of fascism in the USA.

        2. I have little argument with that, or that government education is socialist. I also put police, prosecutors, and courts in that category, along with roads, libraries, and the post office. The existence of FedEx and UPS, Blockbuster, arbitration, and home schooling and private schools does not change that.

        3. Correct: the progressive policies of the US federal government are “soft fascism”. That’s no accident, since fascism and progressivism are historically closely related.

  12. “Does he know how the last one turned out?”

    No, and neither does the average Democrat voter, for whom this message is intended.

  13. Poor Bloomberg. Another Democrat hopeful that will never be President because most of America does not like New York City mayors.

    Here is something more interesting:
    Millions of political ad dollars fuel Trump impeachment fight

    To show how the House Impeachment was being used as a desperate attempt to weaken Trump going into Election 2020.

    Steyer has spent roughly $20 million on digital ads since his campaign launched in July, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of digital ad data from Google, Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat. In the weeks since his campaign launched, Bloomberg has already poured more than $12.7 million into digital advertising.

    Bloomberg’s roughly $90 million combined TV and digital ad spending during the last month put his campaign ahead of every other presidential contender as well. The second biggest overall ad spender among presidential contenders during the last month and overall is Steyer.

    Bloomberg and Steyer each spent more on ads than all other current presidential candidates combined this year, including Trump.

    1. In other news, “Water is Still Wet,” “Dog Bites Man,” and “Small Medium at Large.”

      In the last story a midget psychic escaped from prison and has yet to be apprehend by authorities.

      1. In the last story a midget psychic escaped from prison and has yet to be apprehend by authorities.

        But enough about Bloomberg.

    2. I thought that by “war on poverty,” Bloomberg meant stop and frisk policing, keeping marijuana illegal, and outlying soda.

      1. And outlaw menthol cigarettes.

  14. California has the nation’s highest poverty rates

    And it always will, since the definition of “poverty” continues to be defined upward.

    1. CA also rewards bums to come here.
      In SF, you might get a free water-front home with medical care delivered by a bus which tours the bum encampments.
      The mayor seems amazed that the bum population continues to grow.

      1. yes there’s that too. If you encourage something with public policy you get more of it. Not a big mystery.

    2. The poverty line is set nationally based on the national income distribution. While that means that (relative) poverty will never be eliminated across the US, if progressivism reduced inequality and lifted low income workers out of poverty, progressive states like California should have low poverty rates compared to other states.

  15. The president can lie and not lose office: that’s what makes this 1984 time.


    1. By the end of this decade, even words like “Orwell” and “Orwellian” had become ambivalent. I realized this in 2017 when my wife, knowing my love of the book, had bought me a cap that said “Make Orwell Fiction Again.” I loved it until I found it had been made in a state that voted for Trump, by a company with a line of libertarian merch. We saw the cap as a riposte to the MAGA mentality, but it was also possible to see it as a reinforcement: Make Orwell fiction again by helping Trump fight Deep State surveillance, man!

      1. “”Make Orwell fiction again by helping Trump fight Deep State surveillance, man!””

        Two minutes hate is the answer!

        1. We have 24 hours of hate on MSNBC, CNN, NBC, NPR,…

    2. US politicians have been explicitly and deliberately lying to Americans since the American military invented propaganda techniques in the early 20th century. The idea that this is anything new is absurd. And Orwell’s 1984 wasn’t prescient, he was simply describing what had already been happening around the world.

  16. The “libertarians” of Reason: “We’re the biggest supporters and defenders of the Fourth Amendment you’ll ever see anywhere in the world.”

    Presiding FISA Court lead justice Rosemary Collyer: “The FBI knowingly and deliberately lied to us so blatantly to get warrants to spy on Carter Page that it makes me question whether we can believe anything the FBI tells us!”


    The “libertarians” of Reason: “Oooh, ummmm, errrr, ahhhh, hey, look over there!!!”

    1. Funny how this is getting little play.

    2. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

  17. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ
    pop over to this website……….. Read More

  18. It is very simple, upon birth every baby gets a $2000 “baby bond” and $8/month is added until they are 16, and this grows until they are 67 at which point it supplements SS and upon death the government takes 40%. We pay for this by increasing payroll taxes .1% for employers and employees. So the baby bond grows tax free and benefits from compound interest. So invested in an S&P index fund a conservative estimate would be $300k in today’s dollars.

    1. At 7% you’d end up with about $250K on the first $2K. Adjusting for inflation you’d have less than $100K in purchasing power at age 67.

      And get up off of your knees.

      1. S&P averages 10% dumbass.

        1. Tax it, dumbass.

          Also look up the impact of regression to the mean.

          1. 10% since 1926!! It would grow tax free and then supplement SS and then upon death maybe tax it at 40%. And SS tax increases only for those that have the baby bond not when the law is passed. Essentially it is a very low interest loan from the federal government that will pay off unlike asinine student loans.

            1. You could also just take some part, say half, of the money people pay into SS and invest that in the stock market as a whole, no stock picking to avoid funny business. Leave the other half in useless government bonds. That alone would make SS solvent for eternity. The main reason it’s always been a ponzi scheme is because they never invested it in anything that generates a real rate of return.

    2. If families can’t pay for this out of their own income, they shouldn’t have kids in the first place.

      1. How shortsighted…we end up paying far more just for SNAP for the elderly. If everyone has an extra $300k to supplement SS then we wouldn’t have to have SNAP for elderly and maybe we could increase Medicare co-pays and premiums.

        1. If everyone has an extra $300k

          Now adjust for inflation. $300K now has more purchasing power now than it will in 67 years.

          And get up off of your knees.

          1. The $300k is in today’s dollars. S&P averages 10% and if everyone is invested in the stock market then Americans would be less likely to unionize or support tariffs because everyone would benefit from public corporations maximizing shareholder value.


              1. Compound interest is #fakenews. Everyone knows you make money by bankrupting casinos and knocking women up!

                1. Your delusion isn’t about compound interest, your delusion is related to the fact that you completely neglect the other economic effects such a redistribution scheme would have.

                  1. Says the guy that voted for a president that threw TRILLIONS down a toilet in the Middle East.

                    1. I’m not exactly sure who you think I voted for or how it is relevant.

          2. Unicorn….don’t reflexively dismiss it. Conceptually, this is sort of like a 529 plan, except geared toward retirement.

            Now IF we wanted government involved in retirement (I do not!) investing, then investing in low cost index funds (like Fidelity zero funds) would be a long-term winner. I would estimate a 3% real (7% annual return, 4% inflation) over lifetime. The chief difference is I would start with 10K per child. That compounds quite nicely over a 60 year period. The money would more than quintuple in this time. Augmented with contributions, that skyrockets.

            1. Keep in mind 4 million births a year. My rationale is the federal government gives out asinine student loans…so why not give out loans to invest at birth??

        2. Those $300k are not “extra”; it’s money you take away from other people and other productive investments.

          And we don’t “have to have” SNAP for the elderly, nor do we “have to have” Medicare.

          1. Whaaaaaa! Whaaaa!

            1. Yup, that about sums up your childish and naive understanding of economics.

  19. Hmm.. let’s see.
    Government consumes 43% of the entire economic output of the country.
    Government has created, encouraged and subsidized the unchecked breeding of low IQ, low agency, criminally-inclined parasites.
    Government has allowed the wholesale invasion of 30 million low IQ, uneducated, unskilled third worlders.
    Yeah, all we need is more government programs and agencies. That should fix it.

    1. Primum non nocere

    2. How are they supposed to become educated if we force them to stay in the third world?

      1. By establishing and attending schools? Just a guess…

        1. Oh, is that what you did?

          1. I don’t live in the Third World.

            1. How lucky for you.

            2. Tony doesnt want to move tot he Third World either.

              Tony just wants to bring Socialists from the Third World to vote in US elections.

              1. They would have far better judgment than Trumplican cultists, no matter what they believed.

                1. A lot of them believe homos should be thrown off cliffs. Are you down with that?

                  1. I’ve been fighting assholes like that for a long time. They are flavored Christian in this country.

                    1. So, you’re good with being thrown off a cliff by Muslims, but not by Christians, because Muslims have “far better judgment”? Am I reading you right?

                    2. And Russians in Russia.

                      And Chinese in china.

                      And Mexicans in Mexico.

                      And Britons in Britain…..

                2. Many people outside the USA consider sodomy deserving of death.

                  Im sure homo Tony supports those people’s beliefs.

                  1. Literally everyone outside the US thinks the things you believe about literally everything are utter horseshit.

                    1. Being in a minority doesn’t make one wrong. The Founders were odd ducks historically speaking, and they sure as hell were right about more than anybody else ever has been in terms of politics.

                    2. Actually being from outside the US, I’m afraid I have to tell you: you, Tony, are a shining example of a privileged, ignorant, selfish, greedy American.

                    3. Poor tony. So angry, so gay, so wrong, and so stupid.

                3. Thanks for admitting that your plan is to Turn the US socialist by importing socialists, Tony.

              2. Tony just wants to bring Socialistshunky young men from the Third World to vote in US electionsserve his needs.


  20. NYT the-weekly-eddie-gallagher-navy-seal

    OT but still in politics: So here is the latest attempt by Propagandists to got after Trump.

    The MSM calls going after any veteran as some reprehensible conduct, no matter what the veteran has done, then the Propagandists go after Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher calling him ‘evil’.

    So, evidently Trump not wanting this particular guy Gallagher to be a scapegoat and protects him from Lefties and war mongers makes this SEAL ‘evil’ now.

    Spec War guys are put in some of the World’s most unsupported and outmanned combat engagements. Most of these guys are egomaniacs and borderline crazy. You would have to be to do what they do. Most of the US military uses overwhelming weaponry to overcome the enemy forces. Spec War guys use other tactics since they are usually small groups.

    Lefties simply want to ignore what other military officers and enlisted folks have done in fucking 19 years of warand use them to further a TDS goal.

    1. I for one dont want a hypocritical government going after brave as hell military members when they (Democrats, Lefties, RINOs, Republicans….) sanctioned torturing people and killing civilians via false narratives about Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Niger….

  21. Pelosi’s daughter: My family ‘did not talk about impeachment’ at Christmas

    They were busy discussing Nancy’s adult diaper and senility problems.

    1. Incontinence of the mouth.

      1. +1000

  22. In Trump Country, a season of need on family farms

    Haha. Look at the propagandists trying to turn corrupt New York State policies against Trump.

  23. Jane Fonda talks about malaise and ‘Fire Drill Fridays’

    Just die already “Hanoi Jane”. You Commie.

  24. Discuss this article on Quora:


    Quora is a vibrant community where everyone must use their real names and a “be nice, be respectful” policy is strictly enforced.

    1. Real names (or any identifying information) are a form of soft censorship and have no business in any remotely objective discussion.

    2. Quora is a leftist ideological bubble where the lives of non-conformists are destroyed. Just the place for a jerk like you.

  25. Exclusive: FBI investigates Briton, others for Epstein links – sources

    Uh-oh, Bill Clinton better run for President again so he can be immune from federal investigation.

  26. Embattled union honchos’ lavish spending exposed: Villas, four-figure dinners, $60,000 cigar bill

    Hey, quit your whining. This is to get pipe fitters that extra $.20 an hour.

  27. “my job will be to move all Americans ahead, and that includes committing our country to new and innovative ways to combat poverty. There has to be a war on poverty.”

    This from a bastard who has openly stated that he favors regressive taxation because it makes it easier to control poor people.

    Raising Taxes on Poor People is a Good Thing.

    Fuck this guy.

    1. Bloomberg also said the only good tax is the one that taxes the other guy. Since he’s not poor, I guess he’s cool with it.

      1. I’m a never Trump guy, but if Bloomberg wins the nomination, I’m voting for Trump.

        1. I’ll send the Blooming idiot a donation.

  28. That’s one of the core failings of Socialists and Democrats — they’re inability to learn from their failures and their irrational exuberance to repeat it.

  29. With all these bold (and expensive) new plans from the Democrats, you’d almost think the federal government was running a surplus and debt was minimal. Instead, the feds can’t afford the level of programs they are running now.

  30. “Does he know how the last one turned out?”

    It’s mired several generations into government dependency, so I’d say it worked out exactly as it was intended to.

  31. We do know how the last one turned out. With much reduction in poverty.

    You people snipe at government programs from the peanut gallery and the bitch whenever that government program doesn’t deliver utopia. Get a job.

    1. much reduction in poverty


        1. “In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: ”

          ” It is important to note, however, that the steep decline in poverty rates began in 1959, 5 years before the introduction of the war on poverty.”

        2. The decline in poverty rates began before the war on poverty. It was the “war on poverty” that brought an end to these improvements. The war on poverty was particularly harmful to black Americans.

          1. It leveled things out. We haven’t seen dire, desperate poverty since, despite that being the natural order in the boom-and-bust cycle you people seem so desperately to want to bring back.

            I am specifically saying it didn’t deliver utopia, and that’s thanks in large part to people like you.

            1. If the war on poverty worked then how do we have MORE people on government programs then ever before?

            2. Federal government intervention in the economy with the objective to end boom-and-bust cycles started decades before the war on poverty and it made the boom-and-bust cycle much worse.

              The war on poverty ended the economic gains poor Americans were previously making, condemning us to decades of stagnation and continued racial inequality.

              And that’s in large part due to people like you: you favor programs that hurt the poor and racial minorities.

            3. I’m sorry Tony, but I simply have to disagree with your ‘leveled things out’ comment. The War on Poverty (WoP) has done no such thing. Quite the opposite. The WoP destroyed black nuclear families, and that actually has been shown conclusively. That is, assuming you trust census data (I do). The data are the data. Poverty rates increased, not decreased on the wake of WoP.

              Welfare rules promulgated back in the late 60’s were not geared toward keeping a Mom and Dad in the same household, and this was a critical error.

              1. I gave a citation, how about you?

                FTR, I’d oppose economics legislation that attempted to tell adults what to do with their private lives.

                1. Well, and the link you gave shows that the war on poverty failed, because as soon as it was being implemented, progress on poverty reduction and racial equality came to a grinding halt. QED

                2. Sigh, your response FTR, I’d oppose economics legislation that attempted to tell adults what to do with their private lives really indicates your orientation to coercion. You appear to embrace it. Tony, you don’t succeed long term with coercion; you succeed long term with incentivizing behavior. In the case of welfare rules, these should have encouraged and incentivized marriage over single parenthood. The outcome we wanted – two parents in the same home rearing their child – should have been incentivized. Instead, the opposite occurred.

                  How do you not see this?

                  Dude….There is a wealth of data for the looking on the census bureau website. They have stats out the wazoo on poverty in America.

                  1. There may be a wealth of data that people do not stay married as much anymore, but I’m not sure there’s any to support the claim that government policy specifically incentivized it.

                    1. Tony…Please, do not be obtuse. If you have done any kind of research into poverty, then you know the AFDC rules incentivized young single women to toss out fathers from the home for the purpose of obtaining welfare checks.

                      This isn’t ideology anymore. There is empirical data. I do not doubt the good intentions of people wanting to alleviate the worst affects of poverty. They wanted to help. The problem is that they failed very badly in this task.

                    2. tony, divorce rates are down.

                      Not many changes in government sponsored marriage in these last 10 years to stay together.

  32. Bloomy is just another liberal idiot. They think the world can be fixed with money…your money! The war on anything is a most stupid idea. For decades, we have had endless wars on one thing or another perpetrated by government and funded by taxpayers. In this case, a return to fully free markets and capitalism will help alleviate more poverty than any government program. We are now a socialist country in many ways and going downhill, gaining speed. When does the individual take responsibility for his own welfare?

  33. “innovative ways to fight poverty”

    Nice album name.

    1. It could be the name of Bernie’s rap album!

  34. Just another rich white liberal with his head so far up his ass he doesn’t know if it’s day or night. If you really want to help America, take your billions and go back to that rat hole you crawled out of. Love Mom

  35. The US was winning the war on poverty until LBJ decided the government needed to take over. That was the end of a long term decline in poverty. Now it is a permanent underclass that is dependent on government, just as designed.

Comments are closed.