The war on poverty has only made the problem worse

[Clementine]

Poverty was on the decline when the war on poverty began. Spending on welfare has increased to an insane level over the years, which would be fine if it worked but it hasn't. Welfare discourages marriage, which ensures that people will likely stay poor and on the doles. Welfare to work has fallen by the wayside. Liberals always prefer artificially propping people up by handing them more freebies instead of encouraging people to lift themselves and stay out of poverty. I really think libs want dependents so they feel good about themselves. Lack of even a high school education, single parenthood and an entitlement mentality ensures a life on the liberal plantation. We have a mindset now passed down from generation to generation that having babies and going on welfare is the thing to do instead of staying in school and staying out of trouble. The traditional values that the older generations had are lost on many of today's welfare recipients. There is no pride anymore. Now it's all about what the government can do for you.


"The official poverty rate has hovered between ten and fifteen percent for 50 years. But that is only a part of the story. Since the 1960s, the institutions that contribute to self-sufficiency—namely, marriage and work—have declined. Today, more than 40 percent of children are born outside marriage; in 1964, only 7 percent were.

A lack of parental work also contributes to the problem. Even in good economic times, work rates among poor households are low, with an average of just 800 hours of work a year, or approximately 16 hours a week."




http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/11/how-the-expensive-war-on-poverty-failed/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

 

[Clementine]

You can see by the chart from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget that while poverty levels are staying about the same, spending has increased sharply. This shows that liberals believe that they can keep people happy by making them more dependent on government. When people get restless and want more out of life, the liberals scramble to find more ways to redistribute wealth. Of course, it means that people want a better standard of living and have no clue how to go about it and the left would prefer they never learn. Some think the best way to increase the money coming in is to have more kids. It's worked that way for decades. How does this prepare people to become self-sufficient? Well, it doesn't.

How sad that some think that more government intervention is the key to a better life. It's government interference that is choking the private sector and killing jobs. A stable home and a job is the path to independence and away from poverty but the current system discourages that. No work requirement, and penalties for marriage in the welfare system. Only an idiot would believe that keeping someone dependent is the way to help them.

 

[WillMunny]

I've noticed any cause uses the metaphor "war on (fill in the blank)" in public discourse, that cause always ends up an abject failure. Maybe it somehow jinxes it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The War on Poverty is working better than anyone anticipated. It has created a permanent, uneducated underclass dependent on the government for its very survival. All the while, government bureaucrats have made a great living and walked away with phenomenal pensions for administering and maintaining the Welfare State.

Gotta congratulate the Democrat Party for devising this Satanic system then making us pay for it

 

[Clementine]

The left's reasons for luring people into dependency is clear and it has nothing to do with benevolence. It's about power.

Imagine that one of the welfare recipients is your child and you are the government doling out money to them. You can't really afford to provide them with the best of things because you have yourself to take care of, so you do the rational thing. You tell them you can only provide a few basics and the rest is up to them. Only the bare minimum. No phone plan, just a prepaid phone for emergencies. A strict budget for food and no extra money for cigarettes or spending money. You can just keep a roof over their head and a few basic necessities. They don't like going without and eventually will seek work because they want nicer things and a more comfortable life. There is no other choice, so they reluctantly apply for jobs. It takes them a while to get used to working and they hate it. If they steal to get what they want, the parent comes down hard on them and teaches them how foolish and irresponsible it is to do that. Eventually, they tire of minimum wage jobs and opt to finish school or further their education. In the end, they do fine because they learned the hard way that working is the only way to get ahead. Because you cared about them, you showed tough love and it paid off. They are happy and living well, thanks to a lot of effort on their part.

Now look at how the government handles the same situation. They can't afford to fund people's lives. Offering the basic necesssities is the right thing to do, but people naturally want more than that, yet will complain because they don't like school or work. If they steal to get what they want, the left pats them on the back and agrees that it's unfair that the neighors have more than they do. They tell people that if they neighbors weren't so greedy, they'd give them more so they didn't have to steal things. Instead of allowing them to go through an uncomfortable process that leads to independence, the government just steals more money from the tax payers and pretends that the problem is solved. And when the people start wanting a better quality of life like their neighbors, the government just finds more ways to steal money on their behalf. People never find independence because no one cared enough to be tough on them. It becomes a way of life that will continue forever. They are sad and resent those who are living well.

Parents want to see their children prosper and find happiness. They know that success as a parent means teaching your children to soar on their own. You'll always be their parent and they will always appreciate you for what you've done for them.

Government needs people to remain dependent on them so they will have dedicated voters. Scared, desperate people are attracted to those who absolve them of responsibility and promise to take care of them. Government will always be their nanny and people will never appreciate what the tax payers have done since it was politicians who did the stealing on their behalf. There will always be resentment towards those who live better outside the plantation. Politicians will always feed that resentment to keep people divided and angry. They will keep people on their side by villifying those who succeeded and will always promise more redistribution of wealth.

 

[MACAULAY]

Every species, including almost all humans on Earth today, have a deeply embedded instinct for: Subsistance.

So, it should not surprise anyone that if you provide an automatic guaranteed Subsistance to people living in, but contributing nothing to, a Society---the large majority of them will just Sit on the Porch....and wait on the Green Government Check and all the other benefits that come from Not taking care of yourself.

That is the Welfare Society the Democrats have built up while they whore-for-votes.

They are mortgaging our children's future by borrowing money to buy votes today.

 

[Timmy]

Heritage.org? I call bull flop .

Why isn't the graph adjusted for inflation ? What is considered a "welfare program" ?

 

[P@triot]

One of the brightest minds in American history observed that over 230 years ago. Sadly, that's how far behind the learning curve simple minded progressives are....

However, it’s completely contrary to what Benjamin Franklin said about ending poverty: "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer".

It’s Morally Wrong to Trap People in Poverty With Welfare Programs

 

[Clementine]

One of the brightest minds in American history observed that over 230 years ago. Sadly, that's how far behind the learning curve simple minded progressives are....

However, it’s completely contrary to what Benjamin Franklin said about ending poverty: "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer".

It’s Morally Wrong to Trap People in Poverty With Welfare Programs

It's the same principle that responsible parents employ with their lazy teenagers. Instead of buying them everything they need or want, the parents teach them that if they don't get off their butts, they'll go without.

What is the incentive for children in poor families to finish school when their parents or grandparents didn't? With a lack of good role models, the children will follow the parent's example. Parents can't teach or demonstrate what they don't know or have no experience in doing. They always say children watch parents more than they listen to them. If they watch parents doing nothing, that will encourage them to do the same.

Right now, even those who do work are in dire need because of a lack of good jobs. Many have lost their comfortable status due to so many small businesses biting the dust these last few years. They take lesser paying jobs, many part time, and they now qualify for aid. This is largely due to liberal policies, such as Obamacare, overregulation and higher taxes. The things that libs say will help people are just creating more poor people.

Before we can nudge people to do more for themselves, we have to bring back the job opportunities that have disappeared.

For decades, the Dems have promised to go after the wealthy yet their carefully written laws favor their wealthy friends. Hillary is owned by Wall Street and will not bite the hand that feeds her by funding her campaign. Her big ideas, like free college, single payer healthcare and billions for amnesty and Muslim seeding will be funded by the little people.

 

[Timmy]

"Poverty" is a relative term. In a sense there will always be poverty.

 

[P@triot]

"Poverty" is a relative term. In a sense there will always be poverty.

Exactly! Which is why progressives should stop pushing for the insane, immature, and ideological "wealth equality". There is only so much money in an economy and the best & brightest will always figure out a way to earn more of it.

 

[Timmy]

"Poverty" is a relative term. In a sense there will always be poverty.

Exactly! Which is why progressives should stop pushing for the insane, immature, and ideological "wealth equality". There is only so much money in an economy and the best & brightest will always figure out a way to earn more of it.

It's not wealth equality . It's about a basic standard of living .

 

[P@triot]

"Poverty" is a relative term. In a sense there will always be poverty.

Exactly! Which is why progressives should stop pushing for the insane, immature, and ideological "wealth equality". There is only so much money in an economy and the best & brightest will always figure out a way to earn more of it.

It's not wealth equality . It's about a basic standard of living .

Bullshit. All progressives ever scream is "wealth inequality". Try doing a search and see how many times that phrase comes up just here on this board chief.

And "standard of living" is a relative term as well. Ultimately, it's not the responsibility of the federal government to involve themselves in any of this stuff anyway. That's what charities and foundations are for.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The war on poverty has made the real poverty rate about 3 or 4 %.

 

[P@triot]

The war on poverty has made the real poverty rate about 3 or 4 %.

Just think...that rate would be 0% and we'd have a national debt of $0 had progressive idiots not illegally and unconstitutional expanded the size and scope of the federal government.

This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.

(Psst...we're almost $20 trillion in debt and we've spent $22 trillion on this progressive nightmare. We could actually have zero national debt right now)

The War on Poverty After 50 Years