Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson declared a “War on Poverty.” And today, much of the rhetoric in Washington has turned to whether or not Johnson’s programs worked, and whether the efforts of the 1960s, which waned in later decades, should be redoubled or scrapped. Democrats are declaring income inequality the issue of this anniversary year, and Republicans are declaring the War a failure, while debating whether their party should even have a poverty agenda.
But a new Columbia University analysis shows that politics aside, the Johnson-era programs did work. And new polling by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, indicates that Americans want more programs to combat poverty.
The Gadfly is not going to get in to the nitty-gritty partisan politics of America's 50 year long war on poverty - for there is a much larger point The Gadfly would like to explore instead. But before The Gadfly gets to that point, the undeniable fact of the matter is - that enough evidentiary data exists showing that progress was made, and if the conservatives are not intellectually honest or mature enough to acknowledge and accept that reality, The Gadfly couldn't fucking give less of a shit.
Now - to the larger point. Many estimates exist as to what the 50 year cost of Johnson's "Great Society" war on poverty has been. Conservatives, such as Tea Party twit Marco Rubio, have been bandying about a number in the $15 trillion dollar range, and while The Gadfly, based on the fact that his own research cannot find a definitive dollar amount agreed upon by either liberal or conservative historians and economists, is willing to accept, for the sake of this argument, that $15 trillion dollar figure.
There are a couple of other dollar figures that The Gadfly would like you dear reader to jot down and keep handy as this discussion progresses. The first of those numbers is the estimated dollar cost to U.S. taxpayers of all of the wars from the Vietnam conflict to present day Afghanistan. That number is approximately $22 trillion. And note that those are only the operational costs of fighting those wars.
The second number is the cost in America's overall defense spending since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, 2001. That number is estimated at around $7.6 trillion, and does not include the operational costs of fighting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Ok - so where are we at? Oh yes - over a 50 year period of time America has spent around $15 trillion (around $300 billion a year in today's dollars) attempting to alleviate national poverty - and, while it is true, poverty still exists, there is no denying that positive results have been achieved. During that same period of time, America has spent approximately $22 trillion on all of the wars that we have been embroiled in. And keep in mind that is just the cost of fighting those wars - and does not include the yearly military/defense budget for the nation's national security - that number over the same period of time would likely be in the triple-digit $ trillion dollar range.
Ok - so $22 trillion for 50 years of fighting wars, another $7.6 trillion on military budgeting sans the cost of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11 and that makes for a total of nearly $30 trillion.
Now - before we proceed, it is important to watch the following two short videos:
If The Gadfly needs to explain to you dear readers the meaning of the message President Dwight D. Eisenhower was soberly trying to convey to the American people, as regards the ever escalating costs of fighting wars and satiating the economic appetite of the gluttonous military-industrial complex, then you truly should not be here reading this blog - you would be much the better entertained, off somewhere playing Farmville on Facebook.
Now - the major conflicts that make up the bulk of that $22 trillion dollar cost over the past 50 years are the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, the Iraq War, and the Afghanistan War.
A question to you dear readers. What precisely has America and the average American citizen gained, in either treasure, or other calculable value, from those four conflicts?
The Gadfly will give you a moment or two to think about that question . . . .
Time's up. If, like The Gadfly, you failed to come up with any sensible and sane answer to that question, welcome to the reality-based world where the rest of us dirty fucking hippies contentedly reside.
And so, in summary, when conservatives are ready to have an honest conversation about comparing the benefits of spending money on bettering the human condition of it's own citizens compared to what it is we get in return for the vast amounts of money we spend fighting these manufactured, needless wars, as well as the endless funneling of tons of taxpayer dollars to the defense industry for weapons of mass destruction which we do not need, then that is when The Gadfly will take a much longed-for sabbatical from attacking the conservative movement and it's leaders.
However, The Gadfly isn't naive. That conversation is not going to occur. Because simply acknowledging that there is indeed something terribly wrong with the grossly obvious imbalance between social spending and military-industrial complex spending in this country, pretty much negates one of the core tenets of modern day conservatism itself - namely that America, solely by virtue of who we are, is exceptional. Yes, that's right - because nothing screams "exceptional" more than a society that neglects it's children, it's poor, it's elderly and it's most vulnerable citizens in favor of engaging in phony wars of choice, all the while enriching the wealthy elites who are, for all intents and purposes, the snake's head of the present-day military-industrial complex.
And you know something dear readers, nothing will ever change until people accept this reality. And in fact, if they do not accept it, it truly can only end in tragic failure for every one of us - because that, historically, has been the ultimate fate of all arrogant empires.
----TFG
No comments:
Post a Comment