Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The War on Poverty is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent.
Since 1964 we have been fighting the war on poverty, almost 50 years. We have been fighting it by giving and giving and giving more money to the poor. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and it still does not work. Do you think that after almost 50 years we should try another way. The best way to fight poverty is not through government spending but through economic growth. Put the capable poor to work.
Poverty breeds poverty. I don't think the kids of upper-class people go down the economic ladder unless they are druggies or have mental problems.
I dont know the numbers, but I would venture a guess that there are as many Americans closer to the poverty line than to the upper class. As the economy improves, the number of Ameircans on Food stamps and TANF will decrease.
There will always be poor folk. Working to mke those numbers as few as posible is the goal. To say we still have poor folk therefore that is proof that what has been done since 1964 is not working is a little simplistic.
I dont know the numbers, but I would venture a guess that there are as many Americans closer to the poverty line than to the upper class. As the economy improves, the number of Ameircans on Food stamps and TANF will decrease.
There will always be poor folk. Working to mke those numbers as few as posible is the goal. To say we still have poor folk therefore that is proof that what has been done since 1964 is not working is a little simplistic.
When the War on Poverty has not resulted in the portion of the populace being in poverty ever in half a century going below that which was in poverty prior to the polices being enacted, then I believe it isn't too simplistic to say that the policies do not work.
do you think we are "giving" money to the same group of "poor" as in 1964?
Do you not think that Americans move in and out of poverty? Do you believe someone born in 1964 has been living in poverty for 50 years?
You don't need to put giving in quotes like that. It is giving, not "giving". Welfare is not an insurance program. It's an entitlement. It's giving.
Welfare helps situational poverty - people who become disadvantaged through circumstance and use the safety net until they can get themselves out of poverty.
However there is generational poverty - people who are born into poverty, grow up in poverty, have a new generation of children in poverty, and never get out. These people use the safety net as their income, not as a safety net while they work their way up.
The liberals who like to bash conservatives for not having compassion for the people in situational poverty are hypocrites when they do not recognize generational poverty. They are just as much guilty of looking at the poor in a partisan manner.
First and foremost welfare is stealing, taking by force from those who produce and giving those who dont.
"The welfare state is the oldest con game in the world. First you take peoples money away quietly and then you give some of it back to them flamboyantly" - Thomas Sowell
Actually, the War on Drugs is America's longest war, but anyways....
Through strengthening SS and the implementation of Medicare, poverty rates, especially among the elderly decreased substantially. This idea that is a failed war and that we need to gut SS and Medicare is completely ridiculous. Without SS, SSI, Medicare, SNAP, UE insurance, and the EITC, poverty would be much worse than it is now. (Of course Cons will argue for an unsubstantiated alternative universe that without these programs we would be living in Shangri-La, but this is simply far-fetched, misplaced ideology).
While economic growth is good, it is not a panacea to our poverty problems. If it were then poverty would have been eradicated since the economy, over the long run, has been growing. Plus, wasn't supply side economics supposed to lift all boats? While the rich have gotten richer of the decades, other groups either lost ground or made marginal gains.
Even if the economy grows, we also have an economic mobility problem in this country. While there is a decent degree of economic mobility among the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles, the opposite occurs among the poorest and richest quintiles. People born very rich, tend to stay very rich. People born very poor, tend to stay very poor.
Another way to reduce poverty is to end the War on Drugs, which is another poverty trap. It is war in which the poor and minorities are largely victims. Instead of imprisonment, we should be focusing on rehabilitation. Once someone gets into the system, it is all that much difficult to get ahead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
