The American Spectator

Robert Rosencrans| 3.16.09 @ 8:04AM

Liberals will argue that the Great Society was money well spent. The facts indicate otherwise. After the Kennedy tax cuts, historical poverty rates which were at 22% began to decline, hitting 14% or so in 1967, coinciding with LBJ's implementation of the Great Society. The term was coined in 1965 and by 1967 the programs were under way.

After 42 years and 7 trillion in expenditures, the poverty rates remain just about where they were in 1967, simply dropping to a little over 12%, indicating that the 7 trillion was wasted, and that the government is doing the wrong things to alleviate poverty.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

Jay Molyneaux| 3.16.09 @ 8:27AM

This lecture ought to be taught in every high school and university in the United States. Not only the economic realities contained herein, but welfare at the terrible cost of the destruction of the African - American family and their now total dependence on government to remain alive at a poverty level. Welfare not only failed to end poverty, it spread it.

One can only wonder to what heights America might have ascended if that 2 trillion dollars that was spent economically enslaving blacks had been spent on productive undertakings?

james23| 3.16.09 @ 9:03AM

A great tour de misery; must reading for younger voters. I have sent copies to my sons.

PS--big typo on p.2, in this line
"In 2000 the prime mortgage interest rate hit an astronomical high of 20.5 percent. " I think the author meant 1980.

dennisl59| 3.16.09 @ 9:35AM

I was a 26 when Carter was elected. Not only was the economy as bad as described, I thought we were going to have a war with the USSR. Yes, folks, it WAS THAT BAD.

Tim Falk| 3.16.09 @ 10:04AM

Perhaps my memory isn't as good as I've thought. I was 20 years old in 1980 and I remember these bad old days. I also seem to recall that "stagflation" was the combination of inflation and a shrinking GDP. Under Keynesian economics, this was not supposed to happen. Stagflation had a great influence on the acceptance of supply side economics and monetarist policies, my shaky memory tells me.

The author is correct (if my memory is also correct) on the definition of the misery index.

Peter R McGrath| 3.16.09 @ 11:33AM

The puzzling aspect to all of the above is that Statist Liberals like our current POTUS continue to believe that our wonderful Federal Government is capable of spreading other people's money around to solve national problems. Quite to the contrary, the American people have demonstrated, time and again, that they are perfectly capable of achieving self-actualized spiritual and temporal success despite the well intentioned, ham fisted, confiscatory actions of our national government.

Obama-type libs can't appreciate that they are NOT appreciated by the productive class. Those who do appreciate their ministrations are too unengaged, apathetic, or stupid to understand that reliance on "benefits" is robbing them of incentive and ruining their lives and the lives of their (usually single parent) children.

The track record of the Federal government at solving problems like "poverty" or "energy" or "sickness" is laughable. Anyone who believes Obama's promise that pointy-headed bureaucrats at HHS will solve the health-care "crisis" needs to change their meds. The Federal Government is run by people who belong to a BIG union and we all know how unions work: don't screw in the light bulb unless the union contract permits light bulb screwing. Obama is the ultimate Union Boss and Chief of the Ruling Class Liberals.

The problem is that he has never succeeded in our free society and is an admitted failure in the capitalist world. He has never run a business, big, small, or otherwise, or made a payroll. Anyone placing their faith in him will be bitterly disappointed. Those who know better will nod their heads and resist the impulse to say "I don't you so" when it came to electing liberal do-gooders.

Marc Jeric| 3.16.09 @ 11:37AM

Excellent article - should be a required course in all universities. A good reminder of Johnson's War on Poverty; what is the definition of victory in that war? What is our Exit Strategy? Let us all ask Abu Hussein from Kenya to give a cogent explanation for this dark period in US history - the years of Nixon-his VP (I forget his name)-Carter! Also - how was it that Reagan's policy of trickle-down-economics (as if there is any other kind) produced 18 years of incredible prosperity?

daboss| 3.16.09 @ 1:23PM

Bob must be working on his 8x10 color glossy graphs with circles and arrows and writing on the back.

Jeremiah is just avoiding the inconvenient truth. Too bad, am actually interested in their thoughts.

Texas Male| 3.16.09 @ 1:51PM

Peter R McGrath said: "the American people have demonstrated, time and again, that they are perfectly capable of achieving self-actualized spiritual and temporal success despite the well intentioned, ham fisted, confiscatory actions of our national government."

This is most certainly true and has been demonstrated time and again! Left wing ideologists KNOW this to be true but a positive outcome for them does not equal prosperity for those willing to make it happen, but something entirely different.

The left is about power and control over lives and property and keeping populations living paycheck to paycheck (relying on them when things become dire) is how they do it. The far left is not only the enemy of the wealty, but also of those below poverty. The idea is to keep the poor EXACTLY where they are despite their ramblings of an ill defined "social justice". The ceiling is lowered over everyone, rich or poor when liberal/socialist/marxist policies prevail. This sham "stimulus plan" (orwellian wording indeed) is not designed to stimulate as much as cripple the average American. We are ALL headed to the liberal plantation.

I wish someone could answer this question:
How can we fight against what is going on now?
The ballot box (while we still have one) is not going to work as every viable politician today is a socialist it seems.

After scoffing at ron Paul while he was running, I would vote for him in a heart beat now. He was definitely a voice in the wilderness.

Howard| 3.16.09 @ 4:05PM

1980 was the year I became a Conservative. Shortly after Jimmy's Desert One fiasco I went on a vacation to Martinique. I noticed this poor island had more new cars than the US seemed to have. On my first day there a German national pointed his finger at me wagging it. He said "you Americans are weak and stupid". I rembember telling him that Carter was toast, and that a new administration will be arriving to fix things. Lo and behold Reagan did many good things. Now I'm afraid we may have to relearn these lessons, as new stagflationists are in power. These folks think their Ivy League educations will allow them to sucercede the market. And the band plays on!

Michael Tomlinson| 3.16.09 @ 7:45PM

To quote a narcissistic ego-maniac “Sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power.” Don't discount Arthus Laffer's prediction of the upcoming Obama depression. Obama is going to make Jimmy Carter and FDR , who destroyed prosperity in the US during their administrations, actually look like they knew what they were doing. He's also going to make JFK and John Murtha look ethical and Alger Hiss look patriotic. As long as Americans give Democrats a free ride life is only going to get worse in the Obamanation.

Phil| 3.16.09 @ 9:21PM

I attended college in the late 70's. You couldn't even get a job at grocery store as a grocery sacker. In 1980, I obtained my first car loan; the interest was 18%. And yet all the pundits now call Carter one of the most intellectual presidents we had. My God, we are repeating history and none of these elected cowards has the guts to say "the Emperor has no clothes".

Angel| 3.16.09 @ 10:29PM

The economy stunk, but worst of all was having to look at Carter's smarmy toothy grin. Malaise!!!Still gives me nightmares.

yo| 3.17.09 @ 10:17AM

great article
I had been thinking more in line with the argument that the libs were heading us into another great dep.
After reading this, i've reconsidered and I think that mr moore is right that it is likely to take us to stagflation. the main reason is that monetary policy will be more like the seventies now.

Tom E| 3.17.09 @ 10:24AM

In the Bush years middle class income declined, just like in the Carter years. Any ideological system taken to excess ends up destroying the economy.

JimBeam| 3.17.09 @ 10:43AM

Bush = Nixon/Ford
Obama = Carter

The problem isn't just "statist liberals." Statist conservatives are just as bad. The problem is one that is shared by both parties, that is that government knows best when it comes to the economy. Whether it is our current President with his Harvard J.D. or our former President with his Harvard MBA, the elites think they know what is best for America, but the truth is that they tend to do more harm than good far more often than not.

Government has a very specific role and a very specific job in society. Government's role in the economy should be to do what is necessary for the common good, but that the market cannot adequately provide, such as public roads, public schools, public safety, the military, and public health. (In every other industrialized nation, health care is considered a public expense.) I would also include certain forms of "social insurance" from FDIC to some form of Social Security as an appropriate role for government.

It is when government exceeds its natural role and starts dictating arbitrary economic policies like "homeownership is good" (promoted by BOTH parties) or "you should make certain choices in your personal life" or "you can only fly to Texas and neighboring states from Dallas's Love Field." that it gets into trouble. Now we have the absurdity of the "bailout nation" where the government decides who survives on the government teat (AIG, Bear Stearns) and who dies (Lehman Bros.). We will all pay the price in dramatically reduced economic productivity in the next few years and will suffer a dramatically reduced standard of living as a result.

MT| 3.17.09 @ 11:27AM

Obama's even more incompetent than Carter--which is unbelievable. At least Carter could blurt out a sentence or two without the teleprompter. Morons.

Paul in Colorado| 3.17.09 @ 1:47PM

In "1984" Orwell makes the left's agenda clear. Poor people are mostly interested in day-to-day survival and have little time for lofty thoughts about human rights. Poor people are easily controlled.

MT| 3.17.09 @ 1:52PM

Idiots are easily controlled. Unfortunately, thanks to our liberal Publik Skool Systim, there are millions of idiots in our country.

T. Jefferson| 3.17.09 @ 4:29PM

I remember Carter too.

Incredibly, you should get a Pulitzer for simply stating the obvious and telling the truth. Where are all the other honest journalists over 30 years old? Oh, you're it?

Thomas Taylor| 3.17.09 @ 5:31PM

Not mentioned, but also utterly destroyed during the 70's was the US Armed Forces. Obama has already proposed a 10% across the board cut in Defense spending. I suspect by the time Obama's time in office is over, the entire country will be on it's knees.

valwayne| 3.17.09 @ 5:46PM

Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs went on to spend $2 trillion over the next 2 and 1/2 decades. Jimmy Obama proposes to spend twice that with almost $2 trillion in debt alone in his first year! And since he broke his promise to oppose earmarks/pork billions and billions of it will be lost to pure corruption. Where's a John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan when you need them.....why do we end up with the Jimmy Carters and Jimmy Obama's?

Yuval| 3.17.09 @ 6:42PM

What you guys don't get is that Obama seems to have learned at least one lesson from Carter. It is simply this; the pesky ballot box will knock you out if you cause the American people too much pain. You therefore have moves from the administration to control the US Census (which determines how the electoral college works and which state gets how many seats in the House), and has inserted provisions into the frankenbudget to send tax dollars to ACORN. At least Carter was principled enough to not try to actively meddle with the actual election system in the country. Believe me, Obama was too obvious with the Census and had to let that idea go, but the administration will try again as it watches it's popularity ratings drop.

KJ| 3.17.09 @ 8:03PM

What nonsense and drivel.
First, deregulation of trucking, airlines, rail and other industries actually began under Carter - opposite of the "reregulation" you allude to in the lede.
Second, windfall taxes on oil companies is not what led to decreased production. Decreases occurred because we were running out of "easy oil" in the U.S. and hadn't yet mastered - at a reasonable cost - ways in which to abstract oil from shales, etc. Meanwhile, oil in the Middle East was easy to extract, cheap to refine and exempt from most import tariffs - hence the shift abroad.
Third, the truth is that all significant measures of economic growth under Carter - GDP, jobs, revenue - were positive. Furthermore, most inflation was offset by steady increases in personal incomes during that era. Meanwhile, Reagan's immoral policies supressed personal income (leading to less savings and more household debt), while real wealth controlled by the nation's top 1 percent grew from 9 percent in 1980 to nearly 23 percent today. And let's not overlook the Reaganomic policies and deregulation schemes as continued under Bush 1, Clinton and Bush II...and the final end result: our current meltdown.

Jim| 3.17.09 @ 8:10PM

Here's what I remember about the 1970s: my father, a diligent, hard working guy, losing job after job as U.S. industries contracted. When did things finally stabilize for him? A few years into the Reagan presidency -- and things got spectacularly better through the Clinton years. With apologies to Barry Goldwater -- and a bit of advice to Democrats -- moderation in the pursuit of economic growth is no vice. We get it. You want to make "progressive" changes. But please, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. The 1970s absolutely stunk.

Draconis| 3.17.09 @ 8:14PM

" ... LBJ unleashed the Great Society welfare state "to end poverty in America." These programs would go on not just to spend more than $2 trillion over the next two and a half decades ... "

Take another look at your math. George Will has the cost of the War on Poverty at $6.6 trillion over a thirty-year period.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/12/AR2005091201260.html

When I first heard that figure, I spent a couple of hours reviewing the annual budgets from 1965 to 1995, and yes, we spent $6.6 trillion to wage war on poverty, the poverty rate was essentially unchanged as a result of all that time and money, and the $6.6 trillion went straight to the bottom line of the national debt, averaging $220 billion per year. $6.6 trillion is $22,000 for every man, woman, and child alive today.

The Democrats complain that President Reagan raised the national debt, but the increase in the national debt during the Reagan years was almost exactly the amount mandated by LBJ's War on Poverty during the Reagan years.

TheEnforcer| 3.17.09 @ 8:43PM

Wow!

I thought you were describing Obama's first 50 days.

deja vu

Alex| 3.17.09 @ 10:22PM

"And then Ronald Reagan saved the world."

Would that be the concluding line of Stephen Moore's fairytale?

So what's Moore's policy? Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts? Deregulation, deregulation, deregulation? It's not as if those policies have led to the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression or anything, right?

Oh wait...

Tom O'Brien| 3.17.09 @ 11:59PM

"It's not as if those policies have led to the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression or anything, right?
WRONG ALEX - Show us how you think "tax cuts and deregulation" led to this crisis. It was state policies of cheap money bubble and giving mortgages to those who couldn't pay them back.

sub| 3.18.09 @ 5:59AM

Nice work Alex. Your response to a factual macro-economic history is to spew Bush Derangement Syndrome nonsense. The next poster is correct, cheap money and social engineering via mortgage lending are at the root of this crisis. You likely believe in big government because you don't pay any of the taxes that fund it. Isn't that easy for you?......

S.L. Toddard| 3.18.09 @ 12:59PM

It's amazing to me that liberals have the nerve to rag on repub presidents with Obuffoon in the white house. This guy is such an incompetent moron he puts our national security at risk. What a loser.

Gazinya| 4.5.09 @ 10:47AM

I well remember that time. I graduated from H.S. in 1965. I voted for Carter because I wanted change. There was a huge democrat majority in both houses and I thought having a democrat president would be swell. I am so sorry.

I remember how suprised I was when I learned that the once strong, resiliant, though poor, black family had been decimated by the welfare of the democrats. If there was a man in the house then no welfare. The more children a single mother had the more money the democrats gave her. The democrats became the absentee daddy to the whole generation of broken families.

I remember in the early 1970's needing any kind of a raise to make ends meet. I was making $756.00/month and thought I was in pig heaven until my first pay check showed up and I dreaded making my $114.00/month house payment. When we did get a pay raise of 2 or 3%, which was every other year, we would be in a higher tax bracket and that would take the raise and then some. The 70's for those who were not yet born or too young to know was a living hell for the family.

So we have LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I, Clinton, BushII and now The Obama. Reagan was a too short stop at the pool of sanity.

dropshippngwatch| 8.31.09 @ 5:35AM

Replica Watch
Fake Watches
Replica Watches
Replica Watches
Replica Watch
Fake Watches
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Wholesale Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Replica MontBlanc Watches
Replica Movado Watches
Replica Omega Watches
Replica Oris Watches
Replica Panerai Watches
Replica Parmigiani Watches
Replica Patek Philippe Watches
Replica Paul Picot Watches
Replica Piaget Watches
Replica Porsche Design Watches
Replica Rado Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 1:43AM

I have read through this article, Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
I do not understand what it meant ah

groupshoes| 10.24.09 @ 3:22AM

Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.

Guide Linkings| 11.20.09 @ 4:12AM

Video Cutter is a very useful software which can easily help you to cut video clips. With an extremely strong ability to support almost all kinds of formats, such as, AVI, WMV, ASF, MPEG2, MPEG1, MP4, MOV, FLV, SWF, VOB, 3GP, 3G2, MKV, M4V, MPG, MP3, WMA, WAV, OGG, AAC, AC3, etc., the video cutting software can surely enable you to deal with most video cutting jobs. Besides, the quality of the cutted files can be fully ensured.

iTouch Converter for Mac is very easy-to-use and specially designed for Mac users o convert all popular videos to iTouch MP4, MOV, M4V video, also extract audio from popular videos to MP3, AAC, AIFF, M4A, WAV audio, even the audio to audio conversion.