Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[Oddball]

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

Of course YOU were never one yourself. Actually, most of the time you don't act like a well-rounded adult either, so you float somewhere in between.

I was thinking frustrated 17-year-old myself.

All-too-predictable retorts, coming form the forum's leading paternalistic nags and know-it-all nannies.

Even your insults are totally lacking in imagination.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Sure, he said that when several generations of the family unit all lived under the same roof, and they took care of their own. He said that when "poor houses" or locking up the crazies were last resorts. But this is the 21st Century.

Granted, there are many who work the system to their advantage when they're fully capable of being on their own, but I still believe those are in the minority. I repeat: Most illiterate people who have never known anything BUT illiteracy and resulting ignorance about parenting, money, work ethics, etc., aren't going to turn around their lives if you just cut them off from life sustaining subsidies when that's all they've ever known unless there are visible options.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Of course YOU were never one yourself. Actually, most of the time you don't act like a well-rounded adult either, so you float somewhere in between.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that rhetorical coward leftists like you can't make your point with reason, so y'all cower behind the elderly, infirm, the pooooor and the chiiilllldrreeennnnn.

Aren't they the outliers of our society? The ones least able to protect themseles?

They are the ones who are first affected by our economic decisions. Looking out for what is best for the wealthiest Americans tends to push aside those least able to protect themselves

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

College is mostly just another scam these days, subsidized by the Government in many cases. More people are college educated today than they were 20-30-70 years ago and the question remains… If education was the answer, why are people still claiming it’s all we need to “fix” problems…

Education is like a magic word, as if someone is educated that makes them “better than” or in some way smarter. Fact is most education has been used as a tool to do less challenging work for more pay, that is one of the reasons this recession is so bad.

Employers realized they simply don’t need to pay someone 40$ an hour that someone off the street could do for 10.

 

[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.

Sure, he said that when several generations of the family unit all lived under the same roof, and they took care of their own. He said that when "poor houses" or locking up the crazies were last resorts. But this is the 21st Century.

Granted, there are many who work the system to their advantage when they're fully capable of being on their own, but I still believe those are in the minority. I repeat: Most illiterate people who have never known anything BUT illiteracy and resulting ignorance about parenting, money, work ethics, etc., aren't going to turn around their lives if you just cut them off from life sustaining subsidies when that's all they've ever known unless there are visible options.

Oh, so families looking after their own is now so passe, that we need to punt them to Big Daddy Big Gubmint?

Talk about heartless.

 

[Oddball]

Of course YOU were never one yourself. Actually, most of the time you don't act like a well-rounded adult either, so you float somewhere in between.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that rhetorical coward leftists like you can't make your point with reason, so y'all cower behind the elderly, infirm, the pooooor and the chiiilllldrreeennnnn.

Aren't they the outliers of our society? The ones least able to protect themseles?

Yup...Which is what makes socialistic welfare state apologists hiding behind them such total cowards.

They are the ones who are first affected by our economic decisions. Looking out for what is best for the wealthiest Americans tends to push aside those least able to protect themselves

Strawman arguments are the next fallback...Good job.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

That's just it: It isn't reduced. If all subsidizes were eliminated, people would be wandering the streets in droves panhandling or stealing; they would be flooding emergency rooms because they're hungry and sick. Crime would exponentially rise.

This isn't something that must be addressed because it could happen. Poverty on that level is HERE, in huge numbers, and the answer to ending the cycle is not simply to shut off the spigot. You'll be tripping over dead bodies.

 

[Oddball]

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.

That's just it: It isn't reduced. If all subsidizes were eliminated, people would be wandering the streets in droves panhandling or stealing; they would be flooding emergency rooms because they're hungry and sick. Crime would exponentially rise.

Look...Up in the sky....

It's a bird....

It's a plane....

No, it's.....

 

[code1211]

This is a key point that isn't broadly understood. There are many out there who believe the War on Poverty refers to some kind of cash assistance program, which they envision to be some kind of souped-up version of AFDC.

The reality is that it refers to a series of programs aimed at providing or achieving education, job training, and individual empowerment. I suppose it would help if every time one is tempted to use the phrase "War on Poverty" he instead substitutes in some of the actual programs ("Job Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Work-Study Program, Adult Basic Education, Rural Loan Program, Employment and Investment Incentives, Work Experience Program, VISTA, the Community Action Program etc").

And you're right to point out the max feas provision of the Community Action Program. The interpretation of that phrase during the implementation of the War on Poverty is a long and complicated story but it does underscore the point that the importance of individual empowerment (not cash transfers), along with skills acquisition (via educational opportunities and job training/experience ventures) was the bedrock philosophical principle underlying the "war." Exactly the sort of attitude many have taken already in this thread.

Yet, after 50 years and trillions upon trillions of dollars of expropriation and redistribution, you schmucks still mewl that poverty, hunger, homelessness and "income equity" are worse than ever.

Like that's supposed to be evidence of success?

Because the failed Reagan revolution and the 30+ years of conservative policies and governance dismantled much of the New Deal and Great Society. It eviscerated not only gains by the poor, it has destroyed the middle class.

While all of that may or may not be true, The number of those classified as below the poverty line started going up before Reagan took office and declined between '82 and '90.

Is it your position that the number increased due to Reagan policies before Reagan was in office? That the number decreased in spite of Reagan policies?

Perhaps, if you return to the door where you entered this consideration, you will find your logic, pick it up and begin using it again.

 

[SFC Ollie]

So we have made little to no difference in poverty......

I wonder why?????

No matter what you truly believe to be true; here is a little fact and history lesson.

Roughly 2000 years ago some wrote down that a man said "the poor will always be with you." or words to that effect.

Who ever said it or wrote it seems to have been right. The poor are still here 2000 years later.

I have seen significant impact on poverty in my lifetime. Yes, we still have people we label poor, but they are not the same poor that were around in the 60s. Poor back then meant no running water, no electricity, no central heat. People still struggle today, but the definition of what makes one poor has changed

Good point, look at all those poor people on welfare with cell phones, flat screen TV's, Ipods, new cars, PS3, GameBox, Wii, etc etc etc........

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

That's just it: It isn't reduced. If all subsidizes were eliminated, people would be wandering the streets in droves panhandling or stealing; they would be flooding emergency rooms because they're hungry and sick. Crime would exponentially rise.

This isn't something that must be addressed because it could happen. Poverty on that level is HERE, in huge numbers, and the answer to ending the cycle is not simply to shut off the spigot. You'll be tripping over dead bodies.

Yes, I just am left wondering how America made it before Government paid people to be poor...

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

So it's like I said the other day, the greater the gap between rich and poor in a society, the better that society is functioning,

from the conservative, laissez-faire, market based perspective.

That is not what Franklin was saying. What he was saying is that people will not typically endeavor to get out of poverty while they are comfortable in it. Hey... you think there's a correlation between the unemployment rate and never ending unemployment checks?

The success of Welfare to Work proves you wrong. I can't find any updated numbers from 2006, although this report is for 2008 (presumably because of the methodology used in compiling the data), but if you look at the chart, you can easily see how the number of recipients dropped considerably following implementation of Welfare to Work.

2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Appendix A. Program Data

As to your little slap toward those unfortunate to have been unemployed, apparently you don't even know that no one can collect unemployment "for life." In fact, 99 weeks is the maximum.

 

[code1211]

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.

So you define the problems and suggest what should be done (which really isn't new), but don't offer any suggestions on how to get there. THAT is the problem. Everyone (EVERYONE!!!!) knows what it is, but it is now so gigantic, it will take a helluva lot more than speeches (and money) to solve the problem.
If the demand is that the government get out of the business of education, then the private sector needs to get on board BIG TIME. Which they most certainly have not done. A few charter schools here and there financed by philanthropists, etc., where kids need to attend a lottery drawing in order to have a chance to attend one just doesn't cut it.

The problem is not that we are not educating kids. The problem is that we are not educating kids in doing things that they absolutely must understand in order to find moderate success in life.

I could have used a course in how to balance a check book. An idea of what happens when I flush a toilet would have been nice. How to replace a light switch. How to take a job interview. How to tie a Windsor Knot. Why holding any job makes a guy more attractive when applying for a different job.

What are the correct words to recite when you meet a person who can hire you? What is the essential thing a supervisor must know about you after you have been hired? Why a person must be ashamed of accdepting cash from the public dole and why it is a source of pride to pay your own way.

How do you develop and maintain a credit rating. Why is debt bad? Why is a savings account good? How much must you save from every check in order to prosper? Why does a stock gain value? What's the point in buying a home? What is compound interest?

These are things that should be taught in public schools in every grade from K-12. Every year. It should be like the ABC's and, on that, everybody should be able to read and write. Vandals and trouble makers must be taken aside and kept from wrecking the education of others.

The educational system is paid for by the public and should prepare our children to earn money and pay taxes. If there are those who choose to be dilinquents, quarentine them like anyone who would otherwise introduce destructive disease to the population. The Kiddie Big House.

Feel good, touchy feely, worthless and time wasting personality building is a waste of time and does not enhance test scores as our failing test scores amply demonstrate. If we provide something that is worth learning, the kids will learn it.

Rather than conditioning them to accept that being gay is the best thing that they can do, why not teach them that they are capable of earning a living and that earning money gives them the freedom to do what they want to do?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

What society has ever solved the poverty problem by neglecting the poor?

Do you really want to create a whole new massive underclass of extremely poor people in this country,

people who get nothing from the government whatsoever?

Can you think of any places around the world where such an underclass exists? Does it look like a condition worthy of imitation?

i certainly don't advocate poverty, why would I? I was raised by the notion that "nobody owes you anything". Unfortunately, we don't address the causes of poverty, only the symptoms, through transfer payments. Poverty isn't the problem, the causes of poverty are the reall issues that require attention.

It doesn't solve anything. I have no problem with government assistance, but when you have generation after generation living at the poverty level and on public assistance. It's time for a new approach. That's all I'm saying.

That's all I'm saying too. Glad we can agree on something.

 

[MaggieMae]

What society has ever solved the poverty problem by neglecting the poor?

Do you really want to create a whole new massive underclass of extremely poor people in this country,

people who get nothing from the government whatsoever?

Can you think of any places around the world where such an underclass exists? Does it look like a condition worthy of imitation?

i certainly don't advocate poverty, why would I? I was raised by the notion that "nobody owes you anything". Unfortunately, we don't address the causes of poverty, only the symptoms, through transfer payments. Poverty isn't the problem, the causes of poverty are the reall issues that require attention.

It doesn't solve anything. I have no problem with government assistance, but when you have generation after generation living at the poverty level and on public assistance. It's time for a new approach. That's all I'm saying.

As a very small child, I once lived in a house for almost a year when the Army lost our furniture and we couldn't afford to replace it. (The folks were civilian employees.) It probably sucked for the folks, but I liked our apple crate chairs, borrowed lumpy mattresses on the floor for beds, and lots and lots of room to push my marble armies around.

We didn't ever go hungry, but until she died, whenever my mother came to visit and I was sure there was nothing whatsoever to eat in the house, she would rummage around in the cabinet, find a package of crackers, a can of this, a serving of leftovers of that and the next thing we knew she had a full dinner on the table. People who used their resourcefulness to survive the Great Depression could do things like that.

When we were first married, Mr. Foxfyre and I sometimes had two to five different jobs just to keep a rented roof over our heads and literally beans on the table, one car, and could afford absolutely no luxuries, but we paid federal income taxes, received no government benefits, and had a great time with our friends most of whom were pretty much in the same boat. It never occurred to us that we were poor or that somebody ought to do something for us. We always believed that hard work and determination would make it better.

It did. For us and all our friends. Some prospered more than others but all prospered. And our children have all prospered too.

A moral society does give a hand up to the fallen and takes care of the truly poor and helpless. But a moral society does not make indentured servants of its people, encourage dependency, create whole classes of permanently unemployed. The federal government I'm afraid does do that.

There are much more constructive ways to approach it.

My family struggled too, Fox. That's not the point, although I do wonder where we would have been had my father not been able to take advantage of the GI bill and get a college education. [Damn government.]

 

[Zander]

Here's an idea for the poor people. Stop smoking cigarettes, stop buying lottery tickets, stop drinking alcohol, Stop having babies, stop making bad decisions. Maybe after a while you won't be so poor?


]

You forgot..... Stop paying the rent, stop heating your home, stop getting sick, stop dreaming about educating your kids

Sorry Leftwinger - Actions have consequences. If you spend your life smoking cigarettes, getting high, drinking alcohol, and buying lottery tickets - you're life may not be so great. If you can't afford to pay your bills - Move in with family or friends, share expenses with other people that make bad decisions like you, eat less food. The best education you can give your kids is by example. Stop being a loser.

 

[Bfgrn]

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

Of course YOU were never one yourself. Actually, most of the time you don't act like a well-rounded adult either, so you float somewhere in between.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that rhetorical coward leftists like you can't make your point with reason, so y'all cower behind the elderly, infirm, the pooooor and the chiiilllldrreeennnnn.

You just prove my points. You folks on the right NEVER measure in human capital, unless it effects one of your three priorities...ME, MYSELF or I.

Then you ostracize liberals who DO measure in human capital, because YOU certainly couldn't be wrong, heartless, self centered or narcissistic. So your only explanation is it HAS to be that liberals are just lying about their empathy...then you don't have to face the fact you are a scum bag.


"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman

 

[MaggieMae]

I think that has been a problem with both Democrats and Republicans for a long long time now RW. Perhaps that is why most of the stimulus money went to very rich Americans rather than to create jobs for the unemployed and therefore poor.

The conservative approach is to empower the poor to become more prosperous, and prosperity then bubbles up.

Think about that as an alternative for awhile.

And how's that been working out? You'd be correct, when you say there must be a more constructive approach. But "empowering" the poor by conservative backed programs (if there are any) hasn't worked either. How do conservatives claim that it has? I'd like to see some examples.

Census Bureau reports new spike in poverty - Sep. 16, 2010

 

[MaggieMae]

There is always the Republican solution to poverty

Give money to the wealthy and let it "Tinkle Down"

Hey s0n........take a gandor over to your search engine and find a map on the election results from two months ago.


Enormous amounts of red on that shit s0n!!!!

Perhaps you missed the memo??

Which means nothing, nada, zip. Which administration ushered in the multi-billion dollar No Child Left Behind and then left it UNDERFUNDED year after year and continues to produce UNDEREDUCATED children?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here's an idea for the poor people. Stop smoking cigarettes, stop buying lottery tickets, stop drinking alcohol, Stop having babies, stop making bad decisions. Maybe after a while you won't be so poor?


]

You forgot..... Stop paying the rent, stop heating your home, stop getting sick, stop dreaming about educating your kids

Sorry Leftwinger - Actions have consequences. If you spend your life smoking cigarettes, getting high, drinking alcohol, and buying lottery tickets - you're life may not be so great. If you can't afford to pay your bills - Move in with family or friends, share expenses with other people that make bad decisions like you, eat less food. The best education you can give your kids is by example. Stop being a loser.

I agree with Zander in principle, but I also know that he can't quantify the numbers that make "bad decisions." Wherever assistance is granted (it's not a right), accountability must be given by the recipient. Documented works project activities should be part of the program, as the recipients move toward becoming taxpayers.