Full Version: Has the war on poverty been successful?
Thomas Sowell printed this article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomass...l/welcome.shtml
The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.
Has the war on poverty been a failure?
If yes, what do you base it on?
If no, facts and figures please!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomass...l/welcome.shtml
The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.
Has the war on poverty been a failure?
If yes, what do you base it on?
If no, facts and figures please!
I think Mr. Sowell's writings are viewed through a lens colored black.
Was the "war" on poverty designed exclusively for Black folks? Or did White folks also benefit in some way from this?
The numbers only show one side -- the Black side. I'd need to see more sides before making a good argument one way or the other.
Was the "war" on poverty designed exclusively for Black folks? Or did White folks also benefit in some way from this?
The numbers only show one side -- the Black side. I'd need to see more sides before making a good argument one way or the other.
Interesting Sowell column that runs all over the place without supporting evidence other than his own ego. While bashing liberals for all the evils of the world, he neglects what 1960s liberals actually did.
Here's my source, a college lecture:
American History 102
From this source:
LBJ beat Reagan to the punch on that one. It also points out that you need to cut consumers' taxes, not investors' taxes, to get the economic push.
Regarding the war on poverty stuff, here's a reason why it didn't get off to a very good start:
So was the war on poverty a failure? In large part, yes. It was a lot of hot air without any nation-wide backing. I remember the conservatives being so dead set against it that the lazy arguments came out. People are in poverty due to lack of initiative.
We hear the same arguments today on occasion. It's interesting to see this in the lecture:
The more things change, the more they stay the same?
Anyway, Sowell's column is trying to encompass over a decade in a few hundred words. It doesn't work. He hasn't made the case for the failure of the war on poverty. I have
for him 
and I did it for free 
because he needs help 
to see the truth 
Here's my source, a college lecture:
American History 102
From this source:
QUOTE
In February 1964, LBJ shepherded another Kennedy plan through Congress: a $10 billion tax cut. This policy was largely a success. Over the next several quarters, consumer spending rose $45 billion, the GNP soared, and the federal government actually increased its revenue. As a result, most top policy makers accepted the tenets of Keynesian economics.
LBJ beat Reagan to the punch on that one. It also points out that you need to cut consumers' taxes, not investors' taxes, to get the economic push.
Regarding the war on poverty stuff, here's a reason why it didn't get off to a very good start:
QUOTE
The Economic Opportunity Act was bold legislation, but it received only about $1 billion to divide among the various programs and remained critically under funded. By 1966, Congress appropriated $4 billion for the programs.
So was the war on poverty a failure? In large part, yes. It was a lot of hot air without any nation-wide backing. I remember the conservatives being so dead set against it that the lazy arguments came out. People are in poverty due to lack of initiative.
We hear the same arguments today on occasion. It's interesting to see this in the lecture:
QUOTE
Goldwater, the "Arizona Archangel," was an honest man, but his political views were more suited to the late nineteenth century than to the modern world. He called for the abolition of the progressive income tax, an end to public works, and an end to Social Security. Goldwater wanted to pare down the federal government to its size in the last century.
The more things change, the more they stay the same?
Anyway, Sowell's column is trying to encompass over a decade in a few hundred words. It doesn't work. He hasn't made the case for the failure of the war on poverty. I have
for him and I did it for free because he needs help to see the truth
QUOTE
The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society -- and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word "liberal" so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.
Has the war on poverty been a failure?
Yes and no. I agree with Sowell in the the program of johnson to extend the New Deal created a long term negative reaction to the political term "liberal" that does have people on the left ducking from the label whenever possible. (Much like the term "feminist")
The war on poverty was a failure for liberals in the country. With LBJ's hastily constructed wave of legislation with which to wage this "war" came the legacy of supposed tax and spend liberals that recklessly use government money and throw it problems instead of patiently finding less expensive and more effective solutions to America's problems. With this legacy comes the belief that the present American debt largely comes from these relatively inexpensive social programs and not from the huge deficits run in the 1980s and the 21st century.
The war on poverty is also perceived to be a victim of the Vietnam War under the theory that you can't buy guns and butter at the same time. This is where I refer to the term relatively inexpensive. The War on Poverty programs were the price of a air of socks compared to the price of a Ferrari. Several billion dollars were being used for the WOP programs while the Vietnam War cost a thousand fold more.
During the years of the war on poverty there was a significant reduction in the poverty rates in this country. In this way the war on poverty played a significant role in reducing poverty for the long term. When the programs of the war on poverty began to be dismantled and/or slowed from 1968 to the present day, the poverty rate has stopped declining in this country and has indeed risen slightly.
The war on poverty was successful in changing the poverty status of the elderly in the United States with the Medicare/Medicaid changes to Social Security in 1965. This was the major success in the war on poverty.
This link has a chart that shows the percentage of people 65 and over who lived in poverty dropped significantly during those years and levelled off. POverty itself declined several points during the WOP Johnson years and some into the Nixon years. These were successes of Johnson's vision for a Great Society with the ability to eradicate poverty.
However many of his programs were either ill-conceived, woefully inefficient, or ticking fiscal time bombs to be left for later politicians.
Job training which was to solve a real problem, taking America's underskilled poor youth and getting them some accessible training to use to get a job, turned out to be more expensive than giving students a full ride at a university.
The CAPs program was a mammoth block grant program to fund grass roots projects created at the local level to help eradicate poverty. Seemingly brilliant, in calling for ownership and control of the poverty fight at the neighborhood or local level, grants were given to many programs that shook the political system. And some mayors saw CAP money being used to fight city hall. Other bystanders saw unusual experimental organizations consuming government money.
The programs grew in size as more people sought out government assistance and more people learned such money was available to them. Later governors and mayors and presidents were left to deal with rising costs and as the bills got higher the support for the programs diminished.
If yes, what do you base it on? If no, facts and figures please
Poverty rates over time in the US
QUOTE
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1964, LBJ both proposed a legislative program and challenged the country. The legislative war on poverty was to be a multipoint program aimed at getting Washington, the states, and local authorities to work together. It included a massive expansion of the food-stamp program, job training, youth employment, and special aid for Appalachia, among other things. Hospital insurance for the elderly - today's Medicare - was part of the effort.
And, the spending begins in earnest.
QUOTE
Almost forgotten today is the fact that, at the same time he proposed a war on poverty, LBJ also pledged to reduce overall federal spending by $500 million, in an effort to win conservatives' votes.
Furthermore, he made his pitch at a time when poverty was actually declining, from 22.4 percent in 1959 to about 19 percent at the time of his address.
Furthermore, he made his pitch at a time when poverty was actually declining, from 22.4 percent in 1959 to about 19 percent at the time of his address.
I believe the term for a program such as this might be called: "Robbing Peter to pay Paul." With Peter being the welfare programs and Paul being the working schmuck.
QUOTE
In fact, recent years have seen a major attitudinal shift in how Washington approaches the problem of driving down stubborn poverty numbers. Where LBJ's approach focused on cash assistance along with other benefits such as food stamps, today the main thrust of government programs is to get poor people into private-sector jobs.
Welfare reform, passed in 1996, is the symbol of this change. Under this bill, if aid recipients don't get a job within a certain time frame, they generally lose most cash benefits. Ten years on, welfare rolls have declined remarkably, though they've begun rising again in some states.
Welfare reform, passed in 1996, is the symbol of this change. Under this bill, if aid recipients don't get a job within a certain time frame, they generally lose most cash benefits. Ten years on, welfare rolls have declined remarkably, though they've begun rising again in some states.
Sounds good and looks good on paper, but I have heard of welfare families that actually have a higher standard of living while on welfare than when the parent works. If we want to get people off the welfare rolls, then we must be willing to pay them a reasonable wage. Since so many are being kicked off the rolls, we should have a surplus of money, right? Riiiiight.
almost forgot the link sorry.
In the links and article here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0109/p01s02-ussc.html
I found some interesting things: The census bureau says that 19% of folks were living in poverty, 36.1 million poeple, in 1964
Okay, in 2000, there were 12.1% living in poverty or 34.6 Million- uh, wait a minute, how is that figure possible, we know population has grown by more of a percent than that, there are at least 295 million living in the US now, how many were living in the US in 1964?
Okay, even worse, I notice that ALL health and human services are lumped into the same group as welfare payments, inflating the amount of actual "welfare" programs through the roof- we lump things like payments to mental facilities and group homes for the disabled, special needs students at school, developmentally disabled of every degree, medicare, medicaid, social security.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0109/p01s02-ussc.html
I found some interesting things: The census bureau says that 19% of folks were living in poverty, 36.1 million poeple, in 1964
Okay, in 2000, there were 12.1% living in poverty or 34.6 Million- uh, wait a minute, how is that figure possible, we know population has grown by more of a percent than that, there are at least 295 million living in the US now, how many were living in the US in 1964?
Okay, even worse, I notice that ALL health and human services are lumped into the same group as welfare payments, inflating the amount of actual "welfare" programs through the roof- we lump things like payments to mental facilities and group homes for the disabled, special needs students at school, developmentally disabled of every degree, medicare, medicaid, social security.
QUOTE
I found some interesting things: The census bureau says that 19% of folks were living in poverty, 36.1 million poeple, in 1964
Okay, in 2000, there were 12.1% living in poverty or 34.6 Million- uh, wait a minute, how is that figure possible, we know population has grown by more of a percent than that, there are at least 295 million living in the US now, how many were living in the US in 1964?
Okay, in 2000, there were 12.1% living in poverty or 34.6 Million- uh, wait a minute, how is that figure possible, we know population has grown by more of a percent than that, there are at least 295 million living in the US now, how many were living in the US in 1964?
In 1960, the population was about 178.6 million. So let's say by 1964 it popped up to 190 million, which works out for the numbers given (36.1 * 100) / 19 = 190.
Link
So for 2000, by the numbers given, the population was (34.6 * 100) / 12.1 = 286.
The census bureau reports 281.4 million Link.
Eh, so somebody is off by a few million. Maybe factored into the larger population number is a margin of error for the uncounted people? Those with no permanent addresses? How do you count the homeless, nomads and train hoppers? And wouldn't these people be counted as living in poverty?
Eeyore, great job of summing up the war on poverty, although I'd not call it a war on anything. More like a political nod to a problem most people did not want to face, but that's wordy and doesn't fit into a political slogan.
Sowell blames liberalism for its failure on poverty, but if the numbers given above are an indication, liberal initiatives did help in some ways to reduce the poverty rate. Things like college work-study and headstart probably helped, and even public housing, although it wasn't done right the first time. In Colorado we have low income housing assistance that pays part of the rent, plus low income mortgage programs.
I just don't see how liberals can be blamed for not eliminating poverty when we constantly have certain conservatives dragging the efforts down. If Sowell were to be honest about this, the most effective efforts at lowering the poverty rate have come from bipartisan initiatives that actually attack the problem and not the philosophies of the opposition. I'm thinking about how home mortgage financing has changed since 1964.
He'd also admit that work-study and headstart were pretty darn good liberal ideas.
But that's not what his writing is about. Oh well, whatever. Guess he makes a pretty good living at it.
A war on poverty is doomed to failure if the efforts being made are for the benefit of those who don't want to be liberated from the condition of poverty.
I have 2 sisters and 3 brothers, only one of each are doing well, as am I. So half of us are poor, and are the ones who were plainly lacking in brainpower.
They had difficulties in school and needed help that they did not get, although getting extra help is no guarantee of success. But brains aside, they also had defeatist attitudes that handicapped them. I suppose constant failure in school helped them develop their attitudes. Certainly our parents were part of the problem, they did not understand the concept of encouragement.
I have, over the years, known several people who have had to struggle constantly just to keep up, and managed to be successful eventually. They had better attitudes.
The weapons needed for a war on poverty are not head start or free tuition or any politically motivated programs, as much as a constant barrage of encouragement and individual attention to the needs of those who, for whatever reason, are not keeping up with the rest of us. And even then, there will always be some who fail.
The war itself is a good idea, but we need to choose more wisely the battlefields.
I have 2 sisters and 3 brothers, only one of each are doing well, as am I. So half of us are poor, and are the ones who were plainly lacking in brainpower.
They had difficulties in school and needed help that they did not get, although getting extra help is no guarantee of success. But brains aside, they also had defeatist attitudes that handicapped them. I suppose constant failure in school helped them develop their attitudes. Certainly our parents were part of the problem, they did not understand the concept of encouragement.
I have, over the years, known several people who have had to struggle constantly just to keep up, and managed to be successful eventually. They had better attitudes.
The weapons needed for a war on poverty are not head start or free tuition or any politically motivated programs, as much as a constant barrage of encouragement and individual attention to the needs of those who, for whatever reason, are not keeping up with the rest of us. And even then, there will always be some who fail.
The war itself is a good idea, but we need to choose more wisely the battlefields.
Has the war on poverty been a failure?
The war on poverty like the war on drugs and the war on terrorism (any of these wars going away soon?), is a neocon catchphrase that sprang up when the movement was more concerned with domestic affairs and the decline of values as defined by Judeo-Christian tradition than foreign policy.
If yes, what do you base it on?
Trotskyites and fledging neocons believed it was the government's duty to stamp out domestic woes. As a liberal who is not "mugged by reality," as Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol (chairman and co-founder of PNAC, editor for The Weekly Standard) described the neocon movement's disenchantment with the Democratic party, I realize government officials are not immune to the human limitations that can place people in poverty. These government officials bring the same limitations to domestic and foreign policy regardless of what side of the political spectrum they promote.
Straussian philosophy isn't forgiving when it comes to the application of principles, though, so declaring war on nouns instead of geographical names to keep intentions "pure" is a given. But even people who profess reality changed their outlook—Dennis Miller anyone?—can get caught up in historical relativism.
To recap, if the "war on poverty" demands the eradication of conditions that promote poverty, then it has failed and will continue to fail on the premise that you cannot legislate the removal of human traits. We are not The Borg and well-placed intentions can't unravel humanity. If the war's goal is limiting poverty as much as humanly possible, on the other hand, then success is measured in degrees and efforts should be sustained.
Some edits because I am dodging the boss. ;p
The war on poverty like the war on drugs and the war on terrorism (any of these wars going away soon?), is a neocon catchphrase that sprang up when the movement was more concerned with domestic affairs and the decline of values as defined by Judeo-Christian tradition than foreign policy.
QUOTE
Initially, neoconservatives focused more on economic policy than foreign policy. The movement's first major publication, The Public Interest, began in 1965. It featured readable, footnoted essays by scholars who had grown skeptical of the Federal government's programs to eliminate poverty, crime, racial discrimination, and similar domestic evils. To some extent, Commentary, the publication of the American Jewish Committee, also began to feature articles critical of existing government policy. The same authors wrote for both publications...
If I had to identify one neoconservative document that best represents the movement's early concerns, it would be the government-funded report by Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action." It was published by the U.S. Department of Labor in 1965. Moynihan concluded that the restoration of the collapsing family structure of blacks was more important than any government policies to remediate poverty. Two years later, he wrote Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding, a collection of lectures he gave on poverty and the failure of the government's "war on poverty" to deal with the root problems, which have more to do with families and welfare payments.
-- An Introduction to Neoconservatism
If I had to identify one neoconservative document that best represents the movement's early concerns, it would be the government-funded report by Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action." It was published by the U.S. Department of Labor in 1965. Moynihan concluded that the restoration of the collapsing family structure of blacks was more important than any government policies to remediate poverty. Two years later, he wrote Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding, a collection of lectures he gave on poverty and the failure of the government's "war on poverty" to deal with the root problems, which have more to do with families and welfare payments.
-- An Introduction to Neoconservatism
If yes, what do you base it on?
Trotskyites and fledging neocons believed it was the government's duty to stamp out domestic woes. As a liberal who is not "mugged by reality," as Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol (chairman and co-founder of PNAC, editor for The Weekly Standard) described the neocon movement's disenchantment with the Democratic party, I realize government officials are not immune to the human limitations that can place people in poverty. These government officials bring the same limitations to domestic and foreign policy regardless of what side of the political spectrum they promote.
Straussian philosophy isn't forgiving when it comes to the application of principles, though, so declaring war on nouns instead of geographical names to keep intentions "pure" is a given. But even people who profess reality changed their outlook—Dennis Miller anyone?—can get caught up in historical relativism.
To recap, if the "war on poverty" demands the eradication of conditions that promote poverty, then it has failed and will continue to fail on the premise that you cannot legislate the removal of human traits. We are not The Borg and well-placed intentions can't unravel humanity. If the war's goal is limiting poverty as much as humanly possible, on the other hand, then success is measured in degrees and efforts should be sustained.
Some edits because I am dodging the boss. ;p
Bill wrote:
This not a personal attack on you, you understand, but Republicans have been saying the very same thing you just said since the 60s when most of these WOP programs began.
This "I got mine, now you go get your own." attitude does nothing to further the uniting of our country; if anything, it drives the wedge between the haves and the have-nots even deeper.
I'm glad there are people such as yourself who are successful, as a matter of fact, I am almost ecstatic! Now, comes the hard part. Since people such as yourself are against welfare programs, how about sharing a little of that wealth with others less fortunate than you? Open that money faucet and let the money begin trickling with opening up a new business in your hometown or elsewhere and put some unemployed people to work. GWB told us himself that this would happen if your taxes were decreased, now, prove him right.
As the first JFK said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
QUOTE
I have, over the years, known several people who have had to struggle constantly just to keep up, and managed to be successful eventually. They had better attitudes.
The weapons needed for a war on poverty are not head start or free tuition or any politically motivated programs, as much as a constant barrage of encouragement and individual attention to the needs of those who, for whatever reason, are not keeping up with the rest of us. And even then, there will always be some who fail.
The war itself is a good idea, but we need to choose more wisely the battlefields.
The weapons needed for a war on poverty are not head start or free tuition or any politically motivated programs, as much as a constant barrage of encouragement and individual attention to the needs of those who, for whatever reason, are not keeping up with the rest of us. And even then, there will always be some who fail.
The war itself is a good idea, but we need to choose more wisely the battlefields.
This not a personal attack on you, you understand, but Republicans have been saying the very same thing you just said since the 60s when most of these WOP programs began.
This "I got mine, now you go get your own." attitude does nothing to further the uniting of our country; if anything, it drives the wedge between the haves and the have-nots even deeper.
I'm glad there are people such as yourself who are successful, as a matter of fact, I am almost ecstatic! Now, comes the hard part. Since people such as yourself are against welfare programs, how about sharing a little of that wealth with others less fortunate than you? Open that money faucet and let the money begin trickling with opening up a new business in your hometown or elsewhere and put some unemployed people to work. GWB told us himself that this would happen if your taxes were decreased, now, prove him right.
As the first JFK said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
QUOTE
Trotskyites and fledging neocons believed it was the government's duty to stamp out domestic woes. As a liberal who is not "mugged by reality," as Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol (chairman and co-founder of PNAC, editor for The Weekly Standard) described the neocon movement's disenchantment with the Democratic party, I realize government officials are not imune to the human limitations that can place people in poverty. These government officials bring the same limitations to domestic and foreign policy regardless of what side of the political spectrum they promote.
Straussian philosphy isn't forgiving when it comes to the application of principles, though, so declaring war on nouns instead of geographical names to keep intentions "pure" is a given. But even people who profess reality changed their outlook—Dennis Miller anyone?—can get caught up in historical relativism.
To recap, if the "war on poverty" demands the eradication of conditions that promote poverty, then it has failed and will continue to fail on the premisis that you cannot legislate the removal of human traits. We are not The Borg goddamnit, and well-placed intentions can't unravel humanity. If the war's goal is limiting poverty as much as humanely possible, on the other hand, then success is measured in degrees and efforts should be sustained.
Straussian philosphy isn't forgiving when it comes to the application of principles, though, so declaring war on nouns instead of geographical names to keep intentions "pure" is a given. But even people who profess reality changed their outlook—Dennis Miller anyone?—can get caught up in historical relativism.
To recap, if the "war on poverty" demands the eradication of conditions that promote poverty, then it has failed and will continue to fail on the premisis that you cannot legislate the removal of human traits. We are not The Borg goddamnit, and well-placed intentions can't unravel humanity. If the war's goal is limiting poverty as much as humanely possible, on the other hand, then success is measured in degrees and efforts should be sustained.
Sounds good to me, but do any of these people have any suggestions as to HOW to eradicate the conditions that promote poverty?
Do you have any suggestions?
UserName - please avoid posting two posts in a row. If you were the last person to post & wish to add more thoughts, you merely need to 'edit' your last post. Thanks 
TOPICS:
Has the war on poverty been a failure?
If yes, what do you base it on?
If no, facts and figures please!
TOPICS:
Has the war on poverty been a failure?
If yes, what do you base it on?
If no, facts and figures please!
[quote=UserName,Aug 19 2004, 03:10 PM]
[/QUOTE]
This not a personal attack on you, you understand, but Republicans have been saying the very same thing you just said since the 60s when most of these WOP programs began.
This "I got mine, now you go get your own." attitude does nothing to further the uniting of our country; if anything, it drives the wedge between the haves and the have-nots even deeper.
I'm glad there are people such as yourself who are successful, as a matter of fact, I am almost ecstatic! Now, comes the hard part. Since people such as yourself are against welfare programs, how about sharing a little of that wealth with others less fortunate than you? Open that money faucet and let the money begin trickling with opening up a new business in your hometown or elsewhere and put some unemployed people to work. GWB told us himself that this would happen if your taxes were decreased, now, prove him right.
As the first JFK said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." [/quote]
I never said anything about being against welfare, note that I am a moderate, not a far right republican. Welfare should be there for those in need, but should not be there for the lazy. And it should be attached to required training that is intended to remove the causes of an individual's need to be getting welfare if at all possible.
I am not successful enough to share with my siblings routinely. Besides, I would rather help my children and grandchildren first. They get their inheritance in the form of a college education at my expense.
Here is partly what I mean by attitude. I have helped one sister in the past, but she insists on getting cash so she can buy cartons of cigarettes instead of milk for her kids. Even at Christmas she insisted that I send cash instead of presents for her kids. My youngest brother is the laziest relative I have, he refused a good paying job that would require him to move closer to the job site, and my other sister offered him a room in her house, but he was not allowed to bring his dogs so he declined the help. He remains unemployed to this day, never worked more than 2 years of his life and he is 54. That 2 years was in the military, from which he was put out on a minor disability. He uses his disability as an excuse. What is it? Loss of higher frequencies in his hearing. No war on poverty is going to help those who won't help themselves.
If being a liberal means the haves give indiscriminately to the have nots, then the have nots have no incentive to better themselves. Most liberals are pro-education, as am I, it is what helped get me where I am. The best part of my education came via military technical schools. I gave them 12 years active duty in return.
If my own siblings won't make the effort to better themselves and I won't share with them, why should I share with non-relatives who want things given to them on their own terms?
JFK was adddressing everyone when he made his famous statement, not just the well off like myself, which btw is age 58 and net worth for me an the wife of around $500K. The poor can do for their country by first doing for themselves instead of asking the country to do it for them. No one succeeds or gets ahead when life is made too easy for them.
Remember kids, it's cool to stay in school.....
[/QUOTE]
This not a personal attack on you, you understand, but Republicans have been saying the very same thing you just said since the 60s when most of these WOP programs began.
This "I got mine, now you go get your own." attitude does nothing to further the uniting of our country; if anything, it drives the wedge between the haves and the have-nots even deeper.
I'm glad there are people such as yourself who are successful, as a matter of fact, I am almost ecstatic! Now, comes the hard part. Since people such as yourself are against welfare programs, how about sharing a little of that wealth with others less fortunate than you? Open that money faucet and let the money begin trickling with opening up a new business in your hometown or elsewhere and put some unemployed people to work. GWB told us himself that this would happen if your taxes were decreased, now, prove him right.
As the first JFK said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." [/quote]
I never said anything about being against welfare, note that I am a moderate, not a far right republican. Welfare should be there for those in need, but should not be there for the lazy. And it should be attached to required training that is intended to remove the causes of an individual's need to be getting welfare if at all possible.
I am not successful enough to share with my siblings routinely. Besides, I would rather help my children and grandchildren first. They get their inheritance in the form of a college education at my expense.
Here is partly what I mean by attitude. I have helped one sister in the past, but she insists on getting cash so she can buy cartons of cigarettes instead of milk for her kids. Even at Christmas she insisted that I send cash instead of presents for her kids. My youngest brother is the laziest relative I have, he refused a good paying job that would require him to move closer to the job site, and my other sister offered him a room in her house, but he was not allowed to bring his dogs so he declined the help. He remains unemployed to this day, never worked more than 2 years of his life and he is 54. That 2 years was in the military, from which he was put out on a minor disability. He uses his disability as an excuse. What is it? Loss of higher frequencies in his hearing. No war on poverty is going to help those who won't help themselves.
If being a liberal means the haves give indiscriminately to the have nots, then the have nots have no incentive to better themselves. Most liberals are pro-education, as am I, it is what helped get me where I am. The best part of my education came via military technical schools. I gave them 12 years active duty in return.
If my own siblings won't make the effort to better themselves and I won't share with them, why should I share with non-relatives who want things given to them on their own terms?
JFK was adddressing everyone when he made his famous statement, not just the well off like myself, which btw is age 58 and net worth for me an the wife of around $500K. The poor can do for their country by first doing for themselves instead of asking the country to do it for them. No one succeeds or gets ahead when life is made too easy for them.
Remember kids, it's cool to stay in school.....
I agree with BillAZ55- there is the intrasient population of those that won't try to help themselves- on PBS they had this show, something like "walk in thier shoes" or something like that- and they profiled 5 poeple on welfare. 2 of them were what I would consider lazy, one, terminally so. She called welfare her "salary" every time she talked about her check- I am not joking. All the rest hated being on "the welfare". 2 of them had higher education, and the bad economy was not allowing them to get a living wage job- and the minimum wage jobs would not cover day care and rent. She had 2 children and her husband had died of cancer some years before.
The majority of those on welfare are on less than 2 years, and it is a temporary measure, though it is the hard core un-employable that you see, not the single mom just getting out of an abusive relationship and trying to get her life together.
Also, ALL health and human services programs are lumped into Sowell's "war on poverty" statement- including where I work, a menal health facility. You can not rationally say that mental health facilities have not improved since 1964!!!
The majority of those on welfare are on less than 2 years, and it is a temporary measure, though it is the hard core un-employable that you see, not the single mom just getting out of an abusive relationship and trying to get her life together.
Also, ALL health and human services programs are lumped into Sowell's "war on poverty" statement- including where I work, a menal health facility. You can not rationally say that mental health facilities have not improved since 1964!!!
QUOTE(UserName @ Aug 19 2004, 08:10 AM)
Bill wrote:
This not a personal attack on you, you understand, but Republicans have been saying the very same thing you just said since the 60s when most of these WOP programs began.
This "I got mine, now you go get your own." attitude does nothing to further the uniting of our country; if anything, it drives the wedge between the haves and the have-nots even deeper.
I'm glad there are people such as yourself who are successful, as a matter of fact, I am almost ecstatic! Now, comes the hard part. Since people such as yourself are against welfare programs, how about sharing a little of that wealth with others less fortunate than you? Open that money faucet and let the money begin trickling with opening up a new business in your hometown or elsewhere and put some unemployed people to work. GWB told us himself that this would happen if your taxes were decreased, now, prove him right.
As the first JFK said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
QUOTE
I have, over the years, known several people who have had to struggle constantly just to keep up, and managed to be successful eventually. They had better attitudes.
The weapons needed for a war on poverty are not head start or free tuition or any politically motivated programs, as much as a constant barrage of encouragement and individual attention to the needs of those who, for whatever reason, are not keeping up with the rest of us. And even then, there will always be some who fail.
The war itself is a good idea, but we need to choose more wisely the battlefields.
The weapons needed for a war on poverty are not head start or free tuition or any politically motivated programs, as much as a constant barrage of encouragement and individual attention to the needs of those who, for whatever reason, are not keeping up with the rest of us. And even then, there will always be some who fail.
The war itself is a good idea, but we need to choose more wisely the battlefields.
This not a personal attack on you, you understand, but Republicans have been saying the very same thing you just said since the 60s when most of these WOP programs began.
This "I got mine, now you go get your own." attitude does nothing to further the uniting of our country; if anything, it drives the wedge between the haves and the have-nots even deeper.
I'm glad there are people such as yourself who are successful, as a matter of fact, I am almost ecstatic! Now, comes the hard part. Since people such as yourself are against welfare programs, how about sharing a little of that wealth with others less fortunate than you? Open that money faucet and let the money begin trickling with opening up a new business in your hometown or elsewhere and put some unemployed people to work. GWB told us himself that this would happen if your taxes were decreased, now, prove him right.
As the first JFK said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
Username, I think you have fallen prey to the stereotype that conservatives do not help the poor. By your standard, socialism is the only way to be charitable.
Let's run down some facts:
- In the 2000 race for President, Al Gore's 1998 tax return, which was made public, showed that he had only contributed a paltry $353 dollars on an income of $197,699.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Bwsc1xx...ons+small&hl=en
- According to public tax returns, in the last ten years John Kerry has given about $150,000 to charity. In that same time period, George W. Bush has given over 1 million dollars to charity, yet their incomes have been about equal.
- According to this CNN article and the Generosity Index, the conservative states in the south and Utah rank the highest in charitable giving, whereas the liberal states in the northeast rank last.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/18/charity.survey.ap/
The socialist war on poverty has been a failure. Hundreds of billions of dollars later, the United States still has nearly the same percentage of people living in poverty. The real winners in the war have been three groups: the bureaucracy which administers the "welfare", the unions which receive dues from the employees of the bureaucracy, and the DNC which receives the campaign contributions from unions.
QUOTE
The weapons needed for a war on poverty are not head start or free tuition or any politically motivated programs, as much as a constant barrage of encouragement and individual attention to the needs of those who, for whatever reason, are not keeping up with the rest of us
Sorry, Bill. I understood this statement to mean that you were not a fan of public assistance programs at all.
I also understood that you might be pretty well off, thus getting a tax refund or a tax break. And, according to GWB, these incentives were supposed to help open up new industry here in the US. I have yet to see much of that, here though.
QUOTE
No war on poverty is going to help those who won't help themselves.
That is true.
QUOTE
If being a liberal means the haves give indiscriminately to the have nots, then the have nots have no incentive to better themselves.
Being liberal really has nothing to do with whether you are a have or a have not, Bill. Gee, I have already slapped myself for thinking that you were a Republican, sorry again. I'm sure there were some liberals who received either a tax break or a tax refund; they were supposed to use some of this "extra" money to help our country also.
QUOTE
JFK was adddressing everyone when he made his famous statement, not just the well off like myself,
I agree, I also believe he was not only speaking of monetary issues either. Freedom comes at a price, whether it is monetary or service to your country.
Deer wrote:
QUOTE
Username, I think you have fallen prey to the stereotype that conservatives do not help the poor. By your standard, socialism is the only way to be charitable.
I don't see socialism as the opposite of conservativeism. But, yes, maybe I do have a few preconceived ideas about conservatives and their beliefs as far as social programs.
QUOTE
- In the 2000 race for President, Al Gore's 1998 tax return, which was made public, showed that he had only contributed a paltry $353 dollars on an income of $197,699.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Bwsc1xx...ons+small&hl=en
ok. But what does this have to do with the war on poverty?
- According to public tax returns, in the last ten years John Kerry has given about $150,000 to charity. In that same time period, George W. Bush has given over 1 million dollars to charity, yet their incomes have been about equal.
got a link for that information? Not that I really care, but I do like to look at sources, credible sources, that is.
- According to this CNN article and the Generosity Index, the conservative states in the south and Utah rank the highest in charitable giving, whereas the liberal states in the northeast rank last.
Well, my daddy always did say that the Democrats were the poorboys and Republicans were the rich fatcats. I guess he was right.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/18/charity.survey.ap/
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Bwsc1xx...ons+small&hl=en
ok. But what does this have to do with the war on poverty?
- According to public tax returns, in the last ten years John Kerry has given about $150,000 to charity. In that same time period, George W. Bush has given over 1 million dollars to charity, yet their incomes have been about equal.
got a link for that information? Not that I really care, but I do like to look at sources, credible sources, that is.
- According to this CNN article and the Generosity Index, the conservative states in the south and Utah rank the highest in charitable giving, whereas the liberal states in the northeast rank last.
Well, my daddy always did say that the Democrats were the poorboys and Republicans were the rich fatcats. I guess he was right.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/18/charity.survey.ap/
edited to remove a quote.
Everyone has a different definition of "well off" and the possibility of tax refunds is based on what gets paid in monthly. I and my wife didn't benefit very much from the latest tax cuts as we have no kids at home, very few deductions, etc.
I am an old style republican, don't like neocons, as they have hijacked the party name and made it mean something distasteful. Neocons are the extremists of the republican party, as are far left liberals in the democratic party.
The war on poverty has been successful for some of us, for reasons that I have already stated. I guess I was a "volunteer" in the war we are debating here, others have been drafted and benefitted to a lesser extent, and others never even knew or cared that the war was being fought.
Legislating opportunity for success is hard enough, obtaining success for all is impossible.
I am an old style republican, don't like neocons, as they have hijacked the party name and made it mean something distasteful. Neocons are the extremists of the republican party, as are far left liberals in the democratic party.
The war on poverty has been successful for some of us, for reasons that I have already stated. I guess I was a "volunteer" in the war we are debating here, others have been drafted and benefitted to a lesser extent, and others never even knew or cared that the war was being fought.
Legislating opportunity for success is hard enough, obtaining success for all is impossible.
One question, and I don't know the answer, is how has the term "living in poverty" changed over the period in question. I believe it to mean those living under "the poverty level", a level of income per family size, and is based on standard of living. But how did the poor live then v how they live now?
We live in a system now where it is very advantageous to come from monied and educated families. There are definitely those who 'make it' from all walks of life, however there are distinct advantages to those who come from parent's who already made it. For a growing portion of the bottom of the wealth pool, the only PERCIEVED option for getting out is through sports or entertainment, or luck. Heck, this notion has spread far beyond that, many 'middle class' people think the only way to 'get rich' is through speculation (luck) in real estate, stock market, or the lottery. There aren't too many who think of inventing the next big thing, or growing a commercial venture.
So on the basis of that, I don't think we've won the war on poverty. It still exists, and in some ways, is spreading.
The only way to get rid of poverty is through productive employment. To do that we must increase commerce by reducing taxes on commerce (sales taxes); increase job opportunities by removing minimum wage laws and reducing taxes on labor & industry (wage & corporate taxes) and curtail speculation while increasing investment (added taxes on financial exchanges with reduced taxes on financial profit). This doesn't leave much to tax, I suggest land values, natural resources, pollution, estate and 'sin' taxes.
Most current forms of welfare are merely treating the symptoms, not the root cause, though that's what must be done when we are unwilling or unable to treat the disease.
We live in a system now where it is very advantageous to come from monied and educated families. There are definitely those who 'make it' from all walks of life, however there are distinct advantages to those who come from parent's who already made it. For a growing portion of the bottom of the wealth pool, the only PERCIEVED option for getting out is through sports or entertainment, or luck. Heck, this notion has spread far beyond that, many 'middle class' people think the only way to 'get rich' is through speculation (luck) in real estate, stock market, or the lottery. There aren't too many who think of inventing the next big thing, or growing a commercial venture.
So on the basis of that, I don't think we've won the war on poverty. It still exists, and in some ways, is spreading.
The only way to get rid of poverty is through productive employment. To do that we must increase commerce by reducing taxes on commerce (sales taxes); increase job opportunities by removing minimum wage laws and reducing taxes on labor & industry (wage & corporate taxes) and curtail speculation while increasing investment (added taxes on financial exchanges with reduced taxes on financial profit). This doesn't leave much to tax, I suggest land values, natural resources, pollution, estate and 'sin' taxes.
Most current forms of welfare are merely treating the symptoms, not the root cause, though that's what must be done when we are unwilling or unable to treat the disease.
QUOTE(SWM28WDC @ Aug 20 2004, 08:46 AM)
So on the basis of that, I don't think we've won the war on poverty. It still exists, and in some ways, is spreading.
The only way to get rid of poverty is through productive employment. To do that we must increase commerce by reducing taxes on commerce (sales taxes); increase job opportunities by removing minimum wage laws and reducing taxes on labor & industry (wage & corporate taxes) and curtail speculation while increasing investment (added taxes on financial exchanges with reduced taxes on financial profit). This doesn't leave much to tax, I suggest land values, natural resources, pollution, estate and 'sin' taxes.
Guess I have to object to "the only way" part. Productive employment helps, but education is most important. Not only do we need to train new generations to make them employable, but we need to teach them how to handle their money for their own long term benefit.
Also have to object to reducing min. wage. Businesses like to claim that they have to fire people every time min. wage goes up, but the burger flippers are still needed and still get hired. One way I would agree to reduce min. wage is to apply it to those who have quit school. Gives them an incentive to finish High School, but of course we also need to make our schools teach more meaningful subjects and stop lowering standards for graduation.
And, too much taxes on land values might damage that part of the American dream that we call home ownership. Go too far down that road and we have what the British have, a few rich land owners and a lot of poor tenants.
None of your suggestions involve the individual. There are many of us who give up early and settle for poverty. We need to make that path a bit less traveled. If they are doing the best they can given their abilities, we help them. If they are just lazy, they need some kind of kick in the pants. But it eludes me as to how to get them motivated. Like I said, I have relatives who need that kick.
Education means nothing if you can't find employment with it. Education doesn't pay, jobs do. Education allows you to get a better job, but right now, we've got more education than jobs, which is why you find more and more college graduates working in 'non college' jobs.
Federal minimum wages generally benefit the children of relatively wealthy parents more than 'the poor'. Burger flippers still get hired, however, more would be hired without minimum wages, reducing consumer prices, increasing commerce, and increase competion for labor and thus raise overall wages. Combined with existing and/or enhanced 'social safety nets', eliminating minimum wages would be economically beneficial to society.
Land taxes, in effect, make the government the 'wealthy landowner', to a degree, and allow the government to reduce the taxes on productivity and investment. They must be introduced slowly, so as not devalue the 'nest egg' of individuals, but as example:
Today, Smallville USA, a house sells for $100,000, of which $25,000 is land value. Smallville charges a 1% annual property tax, and receieves $1000 from the owner of the house. The free market has agreed to pay $110,000 in present value dollars for it: $100,000 from the buyer to the seller, and $10,000 in present value of future tax payments from the buyer to Smallville. A similar arrangement exist between the buyer and his mortgage company: the mortgage company agrees to give the buyer $80,000 today in exchange for a series of future mortgage payments ($20k down and 30 years at $532 a month at 7%).
Tomorrow, Smallville USA enacts a land value tax of $2,00 on properties like this. An identical house sells for $80,000, of which $5,000 is land value. Now remember, these are identical houses, with identical land, it's just that the sale price of the land has been reduced (by the market) by the present value of those future tax payments. The market has still agreed to pay the same for the house, $110,000, it's just that much of the value goes to the town, rather than the seller.
For the buyer, it's a good deal, he's paying the same to live there, but has to mortgage less, and pay interest on less. Furthermore, and more to the point,
For everyone, it's a good deal, because their aggregate taxes are reduced by $1500. Multiply this by every property in the country, and realize that total land values will go up as other taxes are reduced, and suddenly you've replaced economically hurtful taxes with one that has no negative effects on the overall economy.
The problem lies in the fact that you've just snatched someone's nest egg from under them. Overall, this isn't a problem, because the majority of wealth is owned by a very small minority of people -- the distribution of land wealth is even more lopsided than the distribution of income. But on the individual level, it's still hurtful, and shouldn't be implemented that way.
It can be implemented incrementally, first by shifting property taxes to land taxes, revenue neutrally. Most homeowners actually benefit from this through lower tax payments. All homeowners benefit from the de-taxing of additions and improvements. Then, slowly, raise the collections from land taxes and lower the collections from other taxes (particularly income & payroll), while never devaluing or completely stopping the appreciaion of land. Most land appreciates between 5-15% a year, this much could be taken without devaluing the land.
If there were no taxes on wages, profits, interest, or commerce, there would be a miniscule fraction of the poverty there is today. With full, or near full, collection of land rents, there is much less accumulation of wealth, narrowing the wealth gap, while still allowing individuals to be as productive as they can.
Federal minimum wages generally benefit the children of relatively wealthy parents more than 'the poor'. Burger flippers still get hired, however, more would be hired without minimum wages, reducing consumer prices, increasing commerce, and increase competion for labor and thus raise overall wages. Combined with existing and/or enhanced 'social safety nets', eliminating minimum wages would be economically beneficial to society.
Land taxes, in effect, make the government the 'wealthy landowner', to a degree, and allow the government to reduce the taxes on productivity and investment. They must be introduced slowly, so as not devalue the 'nest egg' of individuals, but as example:
Today, Smallville USA, a house sells for $100,000, of which $25,000 is land value. Smallville charges a 1% annual property tax, and receieves $1000 from the owner of the house. The free market has agreed to pay $110,000 in present value dollars for it: $100,000 from the buyer to the seller, and $10,000 in present value of future tax payments from the buyer to Smallville. A similar arrangement exist between the buyer and his mortgage company: the mortgage company agrees to give the buyer $80,000 today in exchange for a series of future mortgage payments ($20k down and 30 years at $532 a month at 7%).
Tomorrow, Smallville USA enacts a land value tax of $2,00 on properties like this. An identical house sells for $80,000, of which $5,000 is land value. Now remember, these are identical houses, with identical land, it's just that the sale price of the land has been reduced (by the market) by the present value of those future tax payments. The market has still agreed to pay the same for the house, $110,000, it's just that much of the value goes to the town, rather than the seller.
For the buyer, it's a good deal, he's paying the same to live there, but has to mortgage less, and pay interest on less. Furthermore, and more to the point,
For everyone, it's a good deal, because their aggregate taxes are reduced by $1500. Multiply this by every property in the country, and realize that total land values will go up as other taxes are reduced, and suddenly you've replaced economically hurtful taxes with one that has no negative effects on the overall economy.
The problem lies in the fact that you've just snatched someone's nest egg from under them. Overall, this isn't a problem, because the majority of wealth is owned by a very small minority of people -- the distribution of land wealth is even more lopsided than the distribution of income. But on the individual level, it's still hurtful, and shouldn't be implemented that way.
It can be implemented incrementally, first by shifting property taxes to land taxes, revenue neutrally. Most homeowners actually benefit from this through lower tax payments. All homeowners benefit from the de-taxing of additions and improvements. Then, slowly, raise the collections from land taxes and lower the collections from other taxes (particularly income & payroll), while never devaluing or completely stopping the appreciaion of land. Most land appreciates between 5-15% a year, this much could be taken without devaluing the land.
If there were no taxes on wages, profits, interest, or commerce, there would be a miniscule fraction of the poverty there is today. With full, or near full, collection of land rents, there is much less accumulation of wealth, narrowing the wealth gap, while still allowing individuals to be as productive as they can.
Well, a very much "baby with the bathwater" solution don't you think?
The by far and beyond majority of the "impoverished" folks in this country are single moms- and the majority of them come out of a dysfunctional household of some type-usually violence. This is a cycle, to be sure, but I don't think it has so much to do with the cycle of welfare as the cycle of violence.
We spend a miniscule part of our budget in direct welfare payments- and a small part of our budget yearly on the truly impoverished in general.
I would say the "war on poverty"- though horribly named IMO- has been VERY successful- when you consider the giant jump in population in this country- to think we didn't actually go backwards on this issue is a huge accomplishment.
I think everybody can agree with a population explosion, at a certain point, quality of life for the majority goes way way down. The fact that we have been able to maintain it so long without this happening is an accomplishment in and of itself.
The by far and beyond majority of the "impoverished" folks in this country are single moms- and the majority of them come out of a dysfunctional household of some type-usually violence. This is a cycle, to be sure, but I don't think it has so much to do with the cycle of welfare as the cycle of violence.
We spend a miniscule part of our budget in direct welfare payments- and a small part of our budget yearly on the truly impoverished in general.
I would say the "war on poverty"- though horribly named IMO- has been VERY successful- when you consider the giant jump in population in this country- to think we didn't actually go backwards on this issue is a huge accomplishment.
I think everybody can agree with a population explosion, at a certain point, quality of life for the majority goes way way down. The fact that we have been able to maintain it so long without this happening is an accomplishment in and of itself.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.