Project Wonderful Banner

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Those damned Wars

What's Mallard raving about today?

War on Poverty, War on Drugs

Mallard, assertion based on Fox Talking Points is not the same as facts.

For example: 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: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.

But what I find most interesting is that an actual war which was factually expensive and an abysmal failure (based on the fact that the WMDs for which we entered it were never found) escapes comment.

8 comments:

Tog said...

Whattaya talking about, Davey? We totes got Osama bin Laden!! And his girlfriend Saddam! That's what the Mission Accomplished banner was all about! I've never heard of these "WMDs" of which you speak, or "an answer in the form of a mushroom cloud," or anything like that at all.

Let the word go forth: Bruce Tinsley says cocaine should be sold legally over the counter. In your town, next to your kid's school. (I always knew he was a pinko.)

Anonymous said...

And speaking of Iraq, a lot of cash (don't recall how many zeros in the figure) just simply disappeared there. This is timely since Mitt is running an ad that wonders were all of it went, in reference to much smaller Stimulus funds.
DW

DiR said...

Wow, fuck you.
I can understand the "War on Drugs" part, but poverty?
Seriously, fuck off.
OKay, a quick research jaunt (which is much more then MF deserves) speculates ~14T spent since 1964, when Johnson passed the legislation.
That's roughly 250B a year, average, spent on welfare programs.
You know, programs with actual, tangible benefits.
Iraq war cost estimates vary (with an ADORABLE statement from Cheney, saying $100B for a two year war. You cheeky rascal!) But I'll take the 3T by 2008 figure, which I think is low-ball number.
That's 600B a year, average, for Iraq.
Fuck you, Bruce.

Kip W [Muffaroo] said...

Sure, it's welded to a cliché, but the Duck has half a point today. I'm taking some time out to just sit quietly. I don't know if I'll be able to get up for a while.

Make that one third of a point, actually, since Mallard is overlooking the human cost of the War on Some Drugs. Still, that's a pretty impressive near-hit.

CW in LA said...

When was the phrase "War on Poverty" last used in earnest?

Yo Brews, 1973 called. They want their dog whistle back.

Andrew said...

CW's exactly right- "War On Poverty", a term coined in the '60's about LBJ's policies, isn't exactly a talking point.

Oh, and "War on Drugs"? Nixon's phrase, embraced by Reagan. Oh, and rejected by the current administration. Is Bruce not getting his talking-points memos? Is this the result of withdrawal? Click- a copy of American Spectator, STAT!

Kip W [Muffaroo] said...

A talking point with who? Baby Boomers know the terms, and the generation before them still cares a lot. War on Poverty? Putting complimentary chocolates on the pillows of Cadillac-driving welfare queens!! War on Drugs? Putting those damned hippies where they belong — behind bars!!

It may not mean the world to younger voters, but the GOP is working around the clock to disenfranchise them anyway.

DiR said...

@Kip: Wwell, the Left Wing MSM gets uppity when you get the national guard just gun them down, so you gotta do SOMETHING with hippies!