Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[Foxfyre]

Okay, refocusing our attention on the thesis of the OP and appealing to the grown ups who have an interest in the topic, this kind of got lost in a brief food fight a few pages back. I personally thinks it speaks to the thesis of the OP so eloquently it deserves another look.

Does anybody get Sowell's point here?

Thomas Sowell, in his amazing and most thought provoking book "Vision of the Annointed" addresses this in the opening section. He had just recounted the pattern of how those who claim the best of intentions generally address societal issues and problems. And then addresses the issue of poverty (among other things) as illustration:

(In Chapter One of Vision of the Annointed. Sowell includes references to his sources for all statistical data. I can't provide page numbers as I am copying this from my Kindle and it doesn't show the page numbers as they appear in the hard copy of the book.)​

Excerpt:

STAGE 1. THE 'CRISIS': Given that the purpose of the 'war on poverty' was to reduce dependency, the question is: How much dependency was there at the time and was it increasing or decreasing before the new policies were instituted? In short, what was the 'crisis' for which the anointed were proposing a 'solution'?​

As of the time the 'war on poverty' programs began, the number of people who lived below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since 1960, and was only about half of what it had been in 1950. On the more fundamental issue of dependency, the situation was even more clearly improving. The proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level without counting government benefits declined by one third from 1950 to 1965. In short dependency on government transfers as a means of warding off poverty was declining when the 'war on poverty' began.

STAGE 2. THE 'SOLUTION': The Economic Opportunity act was passed in 1964, creating the Office of Economic Opportunity, the 'war on poverty' agency. As an historian of poverty programs put it, "Congress was quick to buy a program that might help welfare wither away." The Council of Economic Advisers declared "conquest of poverty is well within our power."​

STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The percentage of people dependent upon the federal government to keep above the poverty line increased. Although the number of such dependent people had been declining for more than a decade before the 'war on poverty' began, this downwar trend now reversed itself and began rising within a few years after that program got under way.​

Official poverty continued its decline for some time as massive federal outlays lifted many people above the official poverty line, but not out of dependency--the original goal. Eventually, however, even official poverty began to rise so that a larger number of people were in poverty in 1992 than were in poverty in 1964 when the 'war on poverty' began.

If Sowell is right--and I would bet a very nice steak dinner that he is--this alone should cause us to back up and rethink what we do. Have all those trillions we have poured into poverty programs created more dependency than have actually helped people who would not have otherwise helped themselves? Cannot reasonable and intelligent people look at it from that perspective and come to a rational and supportable decision without demonizing or insulting some political party or group or demographic?

(Note: I was introduced to Sowell's book some time after I started this thread. I wish I had had it when I started the thread. )

 

[RightDown]

Okay, refocusing our attention on the thesis of the OP and appealing to the grown ups who have an interest in the topic, this kind of got lost in a brief food fight a few pages back. I personally thinks it speaks to the thesis of the OP so eloquently it deserves another look.

Does anybody get Sowell's point here?

Thomas Sowell, in his amazing and most thought provoking book "Vision of the Annointed" addresses this in the opening section. He had just recounted the pattern of how those who claim the best of intentions generally address societal issues and problems. And then addresses the issue of poverty (among other things) as illustration:

(In Chapter One of Vision of the Annointed. Sowell includes references to his sources for all statistical data. I can't provide page numbers as I am copying this from my Kindle and it doesn't show the page numbers as they appear in the hard copy of the book.)​

Excerpt:

STAGE 1. THE 'CRISIS': Given that the purpose of the 'war on poverty' was to reduce dependency, the question is: How much dependency was there at the time and was it increasing or decreasing before the new policies were instituted? In short, what was the 'crisis' for which the anointed were proposing a 'solution'?​

As of the time the 'war on poverty' programs began, the number of people who lived below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since 1960, and was only about half of what it had been in 1950. On the more fundamental issue of dependency, the situation was even more clearly improving. The proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level without counting government benefits declined by one third from 1950 to 1965. In short dependency on government transfers as a means of warding off poverty was declining when the 'war on poverty' began.

STAGE 2. THE 'SOLUTION': The Economic Opportunity act was passed in 1964, creating the Office of Economic Opportunity, the 'war on poverty' agency. As an historian of poverty programs put it, "Congress was quick to buy a program that might help welfare wither away." The Council of Economic Advisers declared "conquest of poverty is well within our power."​

STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The percentage of people dependent upon the federal government to keep above the poverty line increased. Although the number of such dependent people had been declining for more than a decade before the 'war on poverty' began, this downwar trend now reversed itself and began rising within a few years after that program got under way.​

Official poverty continued its decline for some time as massive federal outlays lifted many people above the official poverty line, but not out of dependency--the original goal. Eventually, however, even official poverty began to rise so that a larger number of people were in poverty in 1992 than were in poverty in 1964 when the 'war on poverty' began.

If Sowell is right--and I would bet a very nice steak dinner that he is--this alone should cause us to back up and rethink what we do. Have all those trillions we have poured into poverty programs created more dependency than have actually helped people who would not have otherwise helped themselves? Cannot reasonable and intelligent people look at it from that perspective and come to a rational and supportable decision without demonizing or insulting some political party or group or demographic?

(Note: I was introduced to Sowell's book some time after I started this thread. I wish I had had it when I started the thread. )

Well, that's the right wing way. Ignore counter arguments and proceed with nonsensical blather that plays to anti-government sentiments.

Your own chart, though deceptive, shows the poverty rate cut in half.

Sowell's wrong again, the War on Poverty was not started to reduce government dependency, it was started to battle poverty. The poverty rate is a fraction of what it was prior to the Federal Government stepping in and fixing things.

Come on Foxfyre, why did you post a graph that does not account for population growth? I have a pretty good idea.

The bar graph indicates that the number of impoverished people hasn't changed since prior to the governmental war on poverty until today.

That is false. 40 million poor in a country of 177 million is one thing (1959). 37 million poor in a country of 295 million is quite another (2005).

Please explain your own bar graph.

I have a better idea. Why don't you just continue with your southern bell denials and obfuscations and get back to convincing yourself that government is baaaaad, poor people are baaaaaad and that your musings carry any pretension of intellect.

 

[Mojo2]

Lets Re-think This Entire Premise!

CAN poverty be eliminated successfully?

What would that actually LOOK like once attained?

Is the total elimination of poverty necessarily a GOOD thing or not?

Throughout history there has ALWAYS been a lower class or a lower income group, level or strata.

What happens when there isn't?

 

[Foxfyre]

Lets Re-think This Entire Premise!

CAN poverty be eliminated successfully?

What would that actually LOOK like once attained?

Is the total elimination of poverty necessarily a GOOD thing or not?

Throughout history there has ALWAYS been a lower class or a lower income group, level or strata.

What happens when there isn't?

The Bible advises us that the poor will always be with us. Short of being without any food, clothing, or shelter at all, I don't think starting out poor is necessarily a bad thing at all. I did and while I didn't mind it since almost everybody we associated with was equally as poor, we were determined to become unpoor and so we did. And sometimes poverty is relative. The poorest of our American poor would be considered quite wealthy in some cultures where people are truly hungry for long periods of time. And you are correct that no matter how much the poor escape poverty by our definition, those at the bottom will still be considered 'poor'.

So I am not in a position to judge whether poverty can be eliminated successfully because I am in no position to judge the heart or attitudes or determination of all of those who are poor or how wisely they might choose to take advantage of opportunities to become unpoor.

So I would prefer to continue to focus on the role of government in a) relieving poverty and b) creating or encouraging poverty.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]:

Wow. This is a good post, and I'm two years late to the party, almost three. I voted that the Federal Government has done more to promote poverty than to prevent it. With 47 million plus people on Food Stamps, and billions being doled out to Welfare recipients, these people are not earning money at a rate other employed people do, well below the equivalent $7.25 an hour the minimum wage worker makes. That encourages poverty, it encourages people to remain where they are and suck off the government teat for a long as they can.

I will also point out that Obama extended unemployment benefits the past (almost) three years, some people have been on unemployment for as long as 99 weeks. We need jobs in America, not government dependence.

 

[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.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]:

Wow. This is a good post, and I'm two years late to the party, almost three. I voted that the Federal Government has done more to promote poverty than to prevent it. With 47 million plus people on Food Stamps, and billions being doled out to Welfare recipients, these people are not earning money at a rate other employed people do, well below the equivalent $7.25 an hour the minimum wage worker makes. That encourages poverty, it encourages people to remain where they are and suck off the government teat for a long as they can.

I will also point out that Obama extended unemployment benefits the past (almost) three years, some people have been on unemployment for as long as 99 weeks. We need jobs in America, not government dependence.

Never too late as the topic is as timely now or even moreso with the roll out of Obamacare as it was two years ago. While the graph shows the the percentage of those in poverty has decreased--this being due to the population increase over the same period--the number in poverty remains roughly the same if we utilize whatever the current definition of poverty is at this time. But the elephant in the room is the fact that pretty close to a full 50% of Americans are now receiving some sort of direct government subsidy or benefit. I don't know where to look for statistics to determine how many of those, if they were not receiving that subsidy or benefit, would fall below the official poverty line.

But even that is not the question. The question contained within the thesis of the OP is how many are in poverty BECAUSE of or how many are not in poverty BECAUSE of government policy? In Thomas Sowell's evaluation, he did not quite go so far as to say that. His argument is that the trillions of dollars poured into anti-poverty programs to decrease dependency of people on government subsidy has not been effective in decreasing that dependency. Or at least it has not been effective enough so that we can say that all those trillions were well spent.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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!

Why should all the rest of us suffer because a parent made some poor choices that effect their children? Unless you can prove I have some close genetic tie to those children, they are not my responsibility to feed, house, or clothe.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

I've found that too many youngsters nowadays (I teach at the University) have also been provided a false sense of their real value, having been inculcated with the belief that they deserve recognition and reward without having worked for and earned such.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Funny, you cannot prove that eliminating all the "freebies" would not encourage many to lift themselves out of the dreck. Without actually trying the suggested solution, you cannot say conclusively that it would not work.

 

[Foxfyre]

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!

Why should all the rest of us suffer because a parent made some poor choices that effect their children? Unless you can prove I have some close genetic tie to those children, they are not my responsibility to feed, house, or clothe.

This is going to be one of those very rare times I am going to quarrell with you just a wee bit my dear friend. I am of the camp that a moral society DOES take care of the truly helpless and that would include the children of the parent who made some poor choices. They are the responsibility of all of us.

But I also grew up in a society where parents were fully expected to provide their children with at least a minimum standard of living, food, clothing, and see that they were educated. Those who abused, irresponsibly endangered, neglected or failed to support their children would have those children taken away until the parent was able and/or willing to support them. It was not fool proof by any means, but when the social norm was that the irresponsible parent didn't get a free abortion, didn't get free food, housing, and other perks, and didn't get to keep a baby they could not or would not support, I'm pretty sure there was a whole lot more incentive to them not to get pregnant in the first place. And the few children that the state did have to take into custody did not create an unacceptable strain on the tax payer or community resources.

We can choose to subsidize bad behavior or irresponsible choices and we can choose not to do that.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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

Why should all the rest of us suffer because a parent made some poor choices that effect their children? Unless you can prove I have some close genetic tie to those children, they are not my responsibility to feed, house, or clothe.

This is going to be one of those very rare times I am going to quarrell with you just a wee bit my dear friend. I am of the camp that a moral society DOES take care of the truly helpless and that would include the children of the parent who made some poor choices. They are the responsibility of all of us.

But I also grew up in a society where parents were fully expected to provide their children with at least a minimum standard of living, food, clothing, and see that they were educated. Those who abused, irresponsibly endangered, neglected or failed to support their children would have those children taken away until the parent was able and/or willing to support them. It was not fool proof by any means, but when the social norm was that the irresponsible parent didn't get a free abortion, didn't get free food, housing, and other perks, and didn't get to keep a baby they could not or would not support, I'm pretty sure there was a whole lot more incentive to them not to get pregnant in the first place. And the few children that the state did have to take into custody did not create an unacceptable strain on the tax payer or community resources.

We can choose to subsidize bad behavior or irresponsible choices and we can choose not to do that.

No need to quarrel. If the children were to be removed until such time as the parent can responsibly assume their care, that might be an acceptable alternative. Unfortunately, under the current progressive-controlled ideology, children are considered better served leaving them with the biological parent, regardless of how disinterested or incapable that parent is. Anything done to benefit the child devolves onto the unworthy, undeserving parent, who often uses benefits intended for the children's welfare to make their own (parent's) lives more comfortable while the children continue to languish.

 

[Listening]

You started the thread with the graph below and you don't recall posting any graph. Right.

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.



Does any of that ring a bell? Here's a link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/151893-civics-lesson-101-the-war-on-poverty.html

You entitled it as a civics lesson, so pray tell, do teach us.

Where's the lesson on using poverty numbers that actually reflect population growth?

You go to great pains to point out: 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.

And what's with this: With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart

You frame the discussion with bogus information and expect honest forthright answers.

Why bother at all if your numbers are inaccurate? Why point out what the graph doesn't include, as you did above, if this exercise is just more rightwing propaganda that the poor should be marginalized and that governement is bad...badd I says.

Everything in this post has been discussed and explained throughout the thread. The chart itself shows the actual number of those in poverty and also shows the declining percentage based on population. So if you actually passed a gradeschool math class, you would see that the population factor is clearly addressed. I have provided various other sources that back up the numbers in the chart and have linked to those sources.

In no place in the OP did I make a statement about anything. I asked discussion questions as an invitation for the civil and smart people to take on this particular issue.

I am still awaiting your posting where I have been dishonest in any way or deserve the crude and juvenile language you have used to characterize me. If you are not man enough to post that evidence and/or apologize for your unethical postings, I will wish you a good day and will not respond to you further.

Well my goodness, shut my mouth Mr. Man ..all of the topics have been discussed throughout the thread. Nice try fella.

The chart uses actual numbers? But you wrote: "With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart" Should I link you to your own words? Either the numbers are accurate or they are not. Why the prevarication?

Hold that thought. Here's why your numbers are bogus (for the millionth time):

40 million poor in a country of 177 million is one thing (1959). 37 million poor in a country of 295 million is quite another (2005). Do you see how there's been tremendous progress in battling poverty since the implementation of the War on Poverty by the federal government? In a scant few years, the poverty rate was cut in half. The bottom bar on the graph contradicts the top bar.

But you really don't see that in your graph do you?

Can you explain this little 'whoopsie?'

And I'm as much a man as you are fella. I just don't use cooked numbers and graphes to make my points. You do.

Hello dickweed,

LBJ declares war on poverty in 1964. From the graph you keep wetting your pants over, the poverty rate in 1964 was about 19 %. It is already down (again per the graph you showed) from 22.5% in 1959. The 60's, especially the early/mid 60's were a period huge economic growth (let me guess...you want to dispute that).

So, it already had a downward trajectory.

It levels off by the late 1960's at around 12% and stays there for 10 years. Did we retreat ? Declare victory ? WTF happened. Then at the end of the Carter disaster, it starts to rise and climbs back up to 15% (more than 75% of what it was in 1964). Whhooops. It starts to drop as the economy gains steam and then rises again during the Clinton years (again appearing to touch 15%...nothing to do with Bill Clinton). So from 1970 to 2000 we took a vacation ? We declared a truce ?

It has slowly dropped since then, but recent indications are that it is on the rise (still not half of 19%).

And why don't you explain to us what has been used in the war on poverty ? What kind of resources (say, as a percentage of our GDP) are we throwing at it.

There is every reason to believe it is more related to the economy than anything else.

Sorry. Maybe you should tell that to the Royal Airforce.

 

[Listening]

Off topic.....

Russian diplomats on Medicaid? - The Frederick News-Post : News

More abuse of the system (if the story is true).

 

[Listening]

No need to quarrel. If the children were to be removed until such time as the parent can responsibly assume their care, that might be an acceptable alternative. Unfortunately, under the current progressive-controlled ideology, children are considered better served leaving them with the biological parent, regardless of how disinterested or incapable that parent is. Anything done to benefit the child devolves onto the unworthy, undeserving parent, who often uses benefits intended for the children's welfare to make their own (parent's) lives more comfortable while the children continue to languish.

Correct...it's about time the 800 Lb. gorilla was pointed out.

Good post.

 

[Kosh]

It is time to devise an exit strategy to this war, it has been lost long ago and to many people have died in this war due to collateral damage.

 

[Listening]

It is time to devise an exit strategy to this war, it has been lost long ago and to many people have died in this war due to collateral damage.

And the left screams about costs. I'm waiting to see if the left will accept my challenge.

 

[Vox]

Off topic.....

Russian diplomats on Medicaid? - The Frederick News-Post : News

More abuse of the system (if the story is true).

it is true.
Russian and previously soviet diplomats and all the other staff have always been geniuses in how to abuse the system.

Same is pertinent for Chinese functionals nowadays.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is time to devise an exit strategy to this war, it has been lost long ago and to many people have died in this war due to collateral damage.

I think it will take a Constitutional Amendment that denies all ability to ANYBODY in the federal government to provide any benefit or any charity of any kind to any person, entity, or demographic that was not provided to all regardless of the socioeconomic status or political leanings.

That would not fix the unsustainable entitlements that are already in force, but with no ability to amend or extend these, there would be strong incentive for Congress and the President to start slowly and carefully transferring these to the states where they belonged in the first place. And as these were removed from the bureaucracies who administrate them, those bureaucracies would in turn be slowly dismantled until they no longer existed.

I can imagine nobody who is truly a modern American conservative would not favor this. Unfortunately, I can imagine that very few progressives/leftists/statists/Democrats/political class will favor this.

 

[Bfgrn]

It is time to devise an exit strategy to this war, it has been lost long ago and to many people have died in this war due to collateral damage.

I think it will take a Constitutional Amendment that denies all ability to ANYBODY in the federal government to provide any benefit or any charity of any kind to any person, entity, or demographic that was not provided to all regardless of the socioeconomic status or political leanings.

That would not fix the unsustainable entitlements that are already in force, but with no ability to amend or extend these, there would be strong incentive for Congress and the President to start slowly and carefully transferring these to the states where they belonged in the first place. And as these were removed from the bureaucracies who administrate them, those bureaucracies would in turn be slowly dismantled until they no longer existed.

I can imagine nobody who is truly a modern American conservative would not favor this. Unfortunately, I can imagine that very few progressives/leftists/statists/Democrats/political class will favor this.

States and counties already administer these programs. But don't let any facts disrupt your social Darwinism.

 

[Listening]

It is time to devise an exit strategy to this war, it has been lost long ago and to many people have died in this war due to collateral damage.

I think it will take a Constitutional Amendment that denies all ability to ANYBODY in the federal government to provide any benefit or any charity of any kind to any person, entity, or demographic that was not provided to all regardless of the socioeconomic status or political leanings.

That would not fix the unsustainable entitlements that are already in force, but with no ability to amend or extend these, there would be strong incentive for Congress and the President to start slowly and carefully transferring these to the states where they belonged in the first place. And as these were removed from the bureaucracies who administrate them, those bureaucracies would in turn be slowly dismantled until they no longer existed.

I can imagine nobody who is truly a modern American conservative would not favor this. Unfortunately, I can imagine that very few progressives/leftists/statists/Democrats/political class will favor this.

States and counties already administer these programs. But don't let any facts disrupt your social Darwinism.

So a state could decide to stop administering medicare and it would go away in that state ?

Didn't think so.

Thanks for playing.