Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[Foxfyre]

With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart:

President Johnson announced his landmark "War on Poverty" at the State of the Union Address in January, 1964.

President Obama will probably mention something akin to poverty at his State of the Union Address 47 years later in January, 2011.

So what do the numbers tell you?

Government is necessary to deal with poverty?

Government does a good job in addressing poverty?

Government makes little or no difference in reducing poverty and could have saved a shipload of the people's money--make that mega trillions--if it had not initiated a 'war on poverty'?

Government actually contributes to poverty?

Or something in between?

Or none of the above?

In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.

 

[syrenn]

Snip

In framing your conclusions,

That no matter how things change, everything stays the same.

 

[Oddball]

Well, we do know it keeps the army of bureaucrats who administer the myriad of handout programs in high cotton.

 

[syrenn]

Well, we do know it keeps the army of bureaucrats who administer the myriad of handout programs in high cotton.

Now doesn't that thought just boll you over.

 

[boedicca]

The Federal Government has enabled a Poverty Pimp industry in which vast number of people make a living by keeping millions dependent upon the government.

Of course, what we call poverty now is not really poverty by historical standards. In the U.S., the poor are often obese, and own cars, refrigerators, flat screen tvs, cellphones, etc.

The Real Povery is one of values - the traditional American values of self-reliance, strong work ethic, thrift etc.

 

[MaggieMae]

Poverty breeds poverty. It takes money to make money. Lack of opportunity which results from poverty, leads to a lack of opportunity, like education, which leads to low-paying jobs, which again leads to lack of opportunity, perpetuating the cycle.

Education is the answer. Making sure that even students in crumbling schools with inadequate teachers have the opportunity to learn the same things that more affluent students are afforded. We can't continue to keep passing along failing students just because it's convenient or because quotas need to be met. Only then will the cycle begin to end. It's going to take a serious effort by both the government and local communities comprised of private enterprises stepping up to the plate.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Federal Government has enabled a Poverty Pimp industry in which vast number of people make a living by keeping millions dependent upon the government.

Of course, what we call poverty now is not really poverty by historical standards. In the U.S., the poor are often obese, and own cars, refrigerators, flat screen tvs, cellphones, etc.

The Real Povery is one of values - the traditional American values of self-reliance, strong work ethic, thrift etc.

All that does is address the symptoms, rather than the root cause.

 

[boedicca]

We spend nearly four times per pupil in inflation adjusted dollars on education than we did 50 years ago.

Throwing more money at the education system is not the answer. The problem is one of values.

 

[boedicca]

The Federal Government has enabled a Poverty Pimp industry in which vast number of people make a living by keeping millions dependent upon the government.

Of course, what we call poverty now is not really poverty by historical standards. In the U.S., the poor are often obese, and own cars, refrigerators, flat screen tvs, cellphones, etc.

The Real Povery is one of values - the traditional American values of self-reliance, strong work ethic, thrift etc.

All that does is address the symptoms, rather than the root cause.

The root cause is philosophical, not that I harbor any illusion that you can comprehend this.

 

[Oddball]

Poverty breeds poverty. It takes money to make money. Lack of opportunity which results from poverty, leads to a lack of opportunity, like education, which leads to low-paying jobs, which again leads to lack of opportunity, perpetuating the cycle.

Education is the answer. Making sure that even students in crumbling schools with inadequate teachers have the opportunity to learn the same things that more affluent students are afforded. We can't continue to keep passing along failing students just because it's convenient or because quotas need to be met. Only then will the cycle begin to end. It's going to take a serious effort by both the government and local communities comprised of private enterprises stepping up to the plate.

Fifty years and $8-$10 trillion and all we get are the same tired and empty platitudes.

Talk about your perpetuating cycle of failure.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Federal Government has enabled a Poverty Pimp industry in which vast number of people make a living by keeping millions dependent upon the government.

Of course, what we call poverty now is not really poverty by historical standards. In the U.S., the poor are often obese, and own cars, refrigerators, flat screen tvs, cellphones, etc.

The Real Povery is one of values - the traditional American values of self-reliance, strong work ethic, thrift etc.

All that does is address the symptoms, rather than the root cause.

The root cause is philosophical, not that I harbor any illusion that you can comprehend this.

So someone with no basic education, trying to raise 3 kids alone and working two jobs should give up her refrigerator and her mode of transportation to and from those jobs because she hasn't "earned" it? Gotcha. I'm sure such a mother sits around wringing her hands that she should take a more "philosophical" approach to life.

 

[Foxfyre]

All that does is address the symptoms, rather than the root cause.

The root cause is philosophical, not that I harbor any illusion that you can comprehend this.

So someone with no basic education, trying to raise 3 kids alone and working two jobs should give up her refrigerator and her mode of transportation to and from those jobs because she hasn't "earned" it? Gotcha. I'm sure such a mother sits around wringing her hands that she should take a more "philosophical" approach to life.

Tell me how it is responsible for somebody with no basic education and no spouse to have three kids to support?

How about we make that a socially unattractive situation rather than go out of our way to reward it so that more people will avoid being in that position?

 

[Greenbeard]

Tell me how it is responsible for somebody with no basic education and no spouse to have three kids to support?

How about we make that a socially unattractive situation rather than go out of our way to reward it so that more people will avoid being in that position?

I for one have always thought that children should suffer severely for the marital status of their parents. Stigmatization is just the beginning!

 

[Oddball]

Only took 13 posts for someone to cower behind the sainted chiiiillllldrrreeennnnnn!

 

[code1211]

Tell me how it is responsible for somebody with no basic education and no spouse to have three kids to support?

How about we make that a socially unattractive situation rather than go out of our way to reward it so that more people will avoid being in that position?

I for one have always thought that children should suffer severely for the marital status of their parents. Stigmatization is just the beginning!

The way to find your way out of poverty is work your way out of poverty. This is not an easy thing to do. If you come from poverty, it is likely that you have nobody to show you how to do this. Outside of mastering a skill or developing a steady, consistant work ethic, you must also understand that the Boss is not automatically your enemy.

A kid who understands team work in a sports sense may not understand that it applies in a workplace, also. If he can be taught to see and communicate with the boss as he would with a coach, he will find greater success than he will if he sees the boss as a cop and communicates with him as he would if he was a criminal.

I've had the same conversation with a pretty good number of kids who are in the "first real job" trying to bring them to an understanding of how to speak with the supervisor and how to offer themselves to the team in order that they advance in the company.

The problem is not that they are stupid or that they are incapable. The problem is that they have been beat by circmstance so often that they have become afraid to hope. The slightest obstacle fulfils their own prophecy that the game is rigged. My life has taught me that there is always another way if this one doesn't work.

Their lives' experiences have often demonstrated that every way leads to the same dead end.

If you add to that sum of experience limited literacy or a criminal record, you start to understand the "cycle of poverty".

If you have nothing, it takes very little to lose it all. Every problem could spell the end and every conflict could change your life.

 

[Foxfyre]

Only took 13 posts for someone to cower behind the sainted chiiiillllldrrreeennnnnn!

Well I for one don't mind bringing the children into the mix.

What child benefits most?

The one who knows Mom didn't marry Dad and Dad never comes around but he still enjoys designer jeans, sneakers, and an Xbox?

The one who knows Mom didn't finish highschool and can't write a coherent sentence but they still have a car that runs, a good television set, and cell phones?

The one who sees Mom getting tats and smoking cigarettes and playing the lottery with full security that the government check will be there the first of each month?

or

The child who has a Mom and Dad at home and watches them budget their money to see what they can afford in the way of clothes, conveniences, luxuries?

The child who is encouraged to get a diploma like Mom and Dad and to get decent grades in school and learn responsibility through reasonable chores and maybe an afterschool job?

The child who sees Mom and Dad getting up every morning, getting cleaned up, getting appropriately dressed, and going to work to bring home a paycheck?

. . . . ..

Which of these children is less likely to wind up in poverty?

Which situation should we be promoting for children?

Those who can't answer those questions in a reasonable manner I think really don't belong in the debate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK...

Let's end Medicaid, food stamps, public assistance, subsidized housing, earned income credit, progressive income taxation, heat/energy assistance programs, public school, the minimum wage, every needs based program funded by government, and whatever else I'm leaving out.

There, now they're all gone.

Tell us, how long before we then see a substantial reduction in the amount of poverty in this country?

Don't laugh, this is what conservatives are claiming.

 

[Oddball]

The poor will always be with us.

The idea is, like Franklin said, not to enable the poor to be comfortable and complacent in their poverty.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Only took 13 posts for someone to cower behind the sainted chiiiillllldrrreeennnnnn!

Well I for one don't mind bringing the children into the mix.

What child benefits most?

The one who knows Mom didn't marry Dad and Dad never comes around but he still enjoys designer jeans, sneakers, and an Xbox?

The one who knows Mom didn't finish highschool and can't write a coherent sentence but they still have a car that runs, a good television set, and cell phones?

The one who sees Mom getting tats and smoking cigarettes and playing the lottery with full security that the government check will be there the first of each month?

or

The child who has a Mom and Dad at home and watches them budget their money to see what they can afford in the way of clothes, conveniences, luxuries?

The child who is encouraged to get a diploma like Mom and Dad and to get decent grades in school and learn responsibility through reasonable chores and maybe an afterschool job?

The child who sees Mom and Dad getting up every morning, getting cleaned up, getting appropriately dressed, and going to work to bring home a paycheck?

. . . . ..

Which of these children is less likely to wind up in poverty?

Which situation should we be promoting for children?

Those who can't answer those questions in a reasonable manner I think really don't belong in the debate.

The former for sure.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

OK...

Let's end Medicaid, food stamps, public assistance, subsidized housing, earned income credit, progressive income taxation, heat/energy assistance programs, public school, the minimum wage, every needs based program funded by government, and whatever else I'm leaving out.

There, now they're all gone.

Tell us, how long before we then see a substantial reduction in the amount of poverty in this country?

Don't laugh, this is what conservatives are claiming.

It may not be reduced, but the working people will no longer be enabling and subsidizing it. How is poverty reduced by someone spending their entire lives on the dole at the poverty level?

Jeeesh.