Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[rightwinger]

As a group - Liberals have no business telling anyone what to do when it comes to poverty. They give substantially less to charity than conservatives. They are thrilled to spend "other peoples" money - just not their own.

Punt?

 

[NYcarbineer]

For most people (the decent ones), having a job is far better than living on government hand-outs. That's how it would be better.

Just sayin'.

Is that why the poor are so much better off in places around the world where the government does little or nothing to help them?

Is that your vision for America?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fact that our U.S. auto makers and similar industries have been losing market share for decades. The fact that so many of our labor intensive manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. The fact that there are so many products no longer produced in the USA at all. Why? Because minimum wage laws, union entanglements, government regulation, oppressive environmental constraints, and a growing population who thinks the world owes them a living rather than people should expect to work for what they get.

And you can trace all of that to variations of the War on Poverty.

No, you can't. Don't be ridiculous. The topic was poverty, not the environment for chrissakes.

I want to know how getting rid of Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all other needs based programs will make America better. Specifically.

Yes the topic was poverty and if you think environmental regulations have played no part in that, you really do need to retake Economics 100, let alone 101.

The topic is not what will make America better though that would make an interesting thread.

The topic is whether the War on Poverty has had a significant effect on poverty one way or the other. I think it can be safely established, as described, that it has affected our competitiveness which of course will hit the least employable, i.e. the poor, the hardest.

Can we at least agree that Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, and other 'needs based' programs make people much more comfortable in poverty.

Can we at least agree that at least some are so comfortable in poverty that they really have little or no incentive to get out.

Can we at least agree that the single mother who qualifies for a lot of federal and state assistance has little incentive to marry the father? That the father has little incentive to stick around?

And finally can we agree that politicians and bureacrats whose jobs depend on votes from the poor have little incentive to do what wil actually help people get out of poverty?

So in your world, if we eliminate Medicaid, food stamps, etc., we get rid of the minimum wage, and start polluting again,

America will magically become a better place?

Is that your view, yes or no?

 

[Foxfyre]

I have no quarrel with Zander or NYC, but I think both of you are way out of line here. None of us are privy to know what somebody else wants for anybody unless that person tells us. And to accuse anybody of wanting terrible things to befall anybody else is not only ignorant, it is insulting.

Instead of insulting each other, let's focus on the issues themselves okay? Obviously NYC has not yet accepted my challenge to answer the questions I put to him. I hope he will.

And I know Zander is capable of making a coherant argument for phasing out or abolishing the more destructive policies that are inadvertently hurting people. I've seen him do it.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, you can't. Don't be ridiculous. The topic was poverty, not the environment for chrissakes.

I want to know how getting rid of Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all other needs based programs will make America better. Specifically.

Yes the topic was poverty and if you think environmental regulations have played no part in that, you really do need to retake Economics 100, let alone 101.

The topic is not what will make America better though that would make an interesting thread.

The topic is whether the War on Poverty has had a significant effect on poverty one way or the other. I think it can be safely established, as described, that it has affected our competitiveness which of course will hit the least employable, i.e. the poor, the hardest.

Can we at least agree that Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, and other 'needs based' programs make people much more comfortable in poverty.

Can we at least agree that at least some are so comfortable in poverty that they really have little or no incentive to get out.

Can we at least agree that the single mother who qualifies for a lot of federal and state assistance has little incentive to marry the father? That the father has little incentive to stick around?

And finally can we agree that politicians and bureacrats whose jobs depend on votes from the poor have little incentive to do what wil actually help people get out of poverty?

So in your world, if we eliminate Medicaid, food stamps, etc., we get rid of the minimum wage, and start polluting again,

America will magically become a better place?

Is that your view, yes or no?

You answer my questions first.

And then please rephrase your question. The issue is not what will make America a better place. The issue is what effect is the War on Poverty having on poverty in America.

 

[daveman]

I think it is pretty obvious the right would like to pay no taxes and have no programs or progress. How close to the nonexistence of government do they dare take America? I would like to end the argument and see where they take us in destroying our nation. Anyone willing to that?

They want the poor to look like the poor in places like Mexico, or India, or Africa. They want the poor to LOOK poor; government assistance destroys that look.

You don't actually know any conservatives in real life, do you? And if by some chance you do, you don't discuss politics with them.

No, it's ever so much easier relying on stereotypes and talking points, isn't it?

 

[shintao]

As a group - Liberals have no business telling anyone what to do when it comes to poverty. They give substantially less to charity than conservatives. They are thrilled to spend "other peoples" money - just not their own.

And so because you give more to poverty, the 1st Amendment should be denied to those that don't??

 

[shintao]

I think it is pretty obvious the right would like to pay no taxes and have no programs or progress. How close to the nonexistence of government do they dare take America? I would like to end the argument and see where they take us in destroying our nation. Anyone willing to that?

They want the poor to look like the poor in places like Mexico, or India, or Africa. They want the poor to LOOK poor; government assistance destroys that look.

Yes, they want pain and suffering, especially for their own people. And hey, I am armed, lets go for chaos. One thing about this nature they are always spouting, the poor are going to eat and feed their families, and no body best get in their way of doing that.

 

[The T]

There will ALWAYS be those that are in poverty. There always have been. It always will be. And poverty is subjective depending on where you look.
People are impoverished because of circumstance and life choices they've made for themselves.

As to my poll answer? I chose "Government promotes" precisely due to their regulations, and trying to engineer society where they do not belong.

Get government off the backs of people, and we will flourish, shine. Anyone that doesn't flourish does so by choice, and poor choices at that.

Liberty is an all or nothing proposition frought with responsibility. High time responsibility is recognized instead of playing the blame game that forces gubmint to wrongly become involved.

 

[Foxfyre]

There will ALWAYS be those that are in poverty. There always have been. It always will be. And poverty is subjective depending on where you look.
People are impoverished because of circumstance and life choices they've made for themselves.

As to my poll answer? I chose "Government promotes" precisely due to their regulations, and trying to engineer society where they do not belong.

Get government off the backs of people, and we will flourish, shine. Anyone that doesn't flourish does so by choice, and poor choices at that.

Liberty is an all or nothing proposition frought with responsibility. High time responsibility is recognized instead of playing the blame game that forces gubmint to wrongly become involved.

I will go so far to say that there are some in poverty through absolutely no fault of their own but simply due to miserable unfortunate circumstances or just plain bad luck. The difference between such people and those who make bad choices is that the bad luck crowd generally do pull themselves out of it. Those folks I am 100% for giving a hand up to because they will be grateful and return more than they get.

As for the rest I think Ben Franklin's advice has a great deal of merit:

"All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse."

" I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. 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."
-- Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1776

 

[The T]

There will ALWAYS be those that are in poverty. There always have been. It always will be. And poverty is subjective depending on where you look.
People are impoverished because of circumstance and life choices they've made for themselves.

As to my poll answer? I chose "Government promotes" precisely due to their regulations, and trying to engineer society where they do not belong.

Get government off the backs of people, and we will flourish, shine. Anyone that doesn't flourish does so by choice, and poor choices at that.

Liberty is an all or nothing proposition frought with responsibility. High time responsibility is recognized instead of playing the blame game that forces gubmint to wrongly become involved.

I will go so far to say that there are some in poverty through absolutely no fault of their own but simply due to miserable unfortunate circumstances or just plain bad luck. The difference between such people and those who make bad choices is that the bad luck crowd generally do pull themselves out of it. Those folks I am 100% for giving a hand up to because they will be grateful and return more than they get.

As for the rest I think Ben Franklin's advice has a great deal of merit:

"All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse."

" I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. 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."
-- Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1776

Precisely. We as Americans will help those that need it as a matter of good form, and it is demanded of us as a matter of conscience. Our history is replete of such works.

The problem lies therin that the Government has chosen to be our conscience against our will. That leads us to where we are now having this discussion.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Welfare is self defeating.

You see your parents get up everyday and go to work. That preps you to get a job later in life.

You see your parents up after you come home from school, sitting around doing nothing. That preps you to do the same.

We have know this for at least 37 of those 47 years. And yet the dems constantly increase spending on something they must know doesn't work. So logically they must be doing it to keep the poor voting for them. And by increasing the debt we devalue the dollar, making more people poor and therefore reliant on the dems.

It's blatant for all that can see.

Oh wow, if we're going to continue with the blame game, I'll add even more of mine then. Check the figures and tell me when welfare outlay began increasing. You can use this same website to go back as far as when these figures began to be recorded.

Government Welfare Chart in United States 1995-2015 - Federal State Local

Who uses the poor for votes and always has?

Who says "don't vote for ------- or they will take your money away."?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Republicans telling Big Business that: "don't vote for ------- or they will take your money away."?

Both parties to it, and the class warfare before Tucson was tearing the country apart. I listened to some FoxNews today, and I was quite pleased with the rational dissent instead some of the strident propaganda I normally watched. The liberal media has to step up and match it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Precisely. We as Americans will help those that need it as a matter of good form, and it is demanded of us as a matter of conscience. Our history is replete of such works.

Yes, but it is best done no higher than at the state level and most preferably at the local level. It is far more likely that all parties will be responsible and ethical in the process and that true needs are met that way.

The problem lies therin that the Government has chosen to be our conscience against our will. That leads us to where we are now having this discussion.

And this for me is the best post of the day. I have been struggling to find a concise way to describe the phenomenon and you nailed it. "Government has chosen to be our conscience against our will." If you have no objections, I will absolutely steal that line for future appropriate use.

 

[Samson]

The Republicans telling Big Business that: "don't vote for ------- or they will take your money away."?

Both parties to it, and the class warfare before Tucson was tearing the country apart. I listened to some FoxNews today, and I was quite pleased with the rational dissent instead some of the strident propaganda I normally watched. The liberal media has to step up and match it.

What we need is an educated, multiracial leader from an humble background to guide us away from class warfare.



OOps.



scratch that.

 

[Foxfyre]

The difference between two ideologies is that the liberals say don't vote for ____________ because he/they will take your government benefits away.

The conservatives say don't vote for ________________ because they intend to take more of your hard earned money.

One of these two threats is usually more credible than the other.

The thing is, if $10 trillion dollars could solve poverty in America, we wouldn't have any. It is obvious to all but the blind, I think, that lack of money is not the problem. Most poverty in America is a direct result of personal and cultural choices and, in my opinion, it is that we need to address if we are serious about reducing poverty.

But when there is a sizable number of elected leaders willing to accuse the other side of 'hating the poor' or 'not caring about the poor' or 'wanting the poor to be homeless and hungry' yadda yadda, however ridiculous such claims might be, they easily buy, bribe, coerce votes at will. And because those votes are essential for the next successful election, there is little incentive to do it any differently.

So the vested interests continue to blame anybody and everybody for the plight of the poor rather than looking to what the poor can start doing to turn that around. It's pretty obvious, the self interest of some is more compelling than is the desire to solve the problems.

 

[Bfgrn]

As a group - Liberals have no business telling anyone what to do when it comes to poverty. They give substantially less to charity than conservatives. They are thrilled to spend "other peoples" money - just not their own.

THE Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

 

[hipeter924]

Materialism goes hand in hand with poverty, there will always be relative poverty in some form or another so long as people are not employed and/or have a low standard of living and use their money foolishly. It is hard to save money when the world is addicted to hardcore Keynesian worship right now, but I think as a whole people are starting to see that getting into trillions of dollars of debt (the Keynesian way) rather than a trade surplus and government surplus is a bad idea.

As for actually eliminating poverty that wouldn't occur with the existence of corporations and government, as they would run out of a low cost labor force if there was an end to poverty (I don't think I need to describe what effect that would have on costs in the 'first world'), not to mention corporate and government corruption (and manipulation of the masses) is so significant these days that any attempt to end poverty ends in absolute failure.

Thus ending poverty, lets put that in a corner with curing aids.

PS: So perhaps my answer would be the abolishment of the welfare system and an end to all government interference on the issue of poverty.

 

[The T]

Precisely. We as Americans will help those that need it as a matter of good form, and it is demanded of us as a matter of conscience. Our history is replete of such works.

Yes, but it is best done no higher than at the state level and most preferably at the local level. It is far more likely that all parties will be responsible and ethical in the process and that true needs are met that way.

The problem lies therin that the Government has chosen to be our conscience against our will. That leads us to where we are now having this discussion.

And this for me is the best post of the day. I have been struggling to find a concise way to describe the phenomenon and you nailed it. "Government has chosen to be our conscience against our will." If you have no objections, I will absolutely steal that line for future appropriate use.

Sure. By all means. Have a wonderful day.

 

[editec]

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.

That chart, if it proves anything at all, proves that Johnson's War on poverty might have been working until Reagan came into office and started his assault on the working class.

Bear in mind that is not what I say it proves, but it could be interpreted that way if one were foolish enough to try to make such an argument based on only one metric.

How do you account for the fact that the numbers were falling prior to 1965?

And speaking of empty rhetoric, what's that "....until Reagan came into office and started his assault on the working class" dreck?

How do I account for the falling numbers pre 1965?

That was the best economic times this nation had. Of course the rate of poverty was down.

Don't you know anything about this nations economic history, Oddball?

Apparently not.

And you know, if you don't know what thing were like, how can you really judge how policies worked?

Poverty started to increase in this nation when Reaganomics kicked in.

Some segments of the population did better as a result of his policies, but most of us started to have less purchasing power.

The zenith of purchasing power for the middle in America began to fall around 1970 and more or less has been falling ever since.

Welfare has nothing to do with that.

Mostly that has to do with the changing econo0mies in the rest of the world, and our stupid decision to offshore our own indutrial jobs.

Wake up and smell the economy.

You are extremely misinformed by EXPERTS in propaganda.