Oh, for God’s sake. You people don’t live in reality. The War on Poverty reduced income inequality — until the GOP (aided and abetted by Clinton) started killing it.
The problem with the Democrats is that they wish to finance the war on poverty entirely with debt. They are too cowardly to raise the taxes necessary to pay for these ‘wonderful’ programs. Shame on them.
Is there more or less poverty in America today than in 1964? More or less people gettting food stamps? More or less of the potential work force employed? More or less people on unemployment or welfare?
Back when we had a progressive tax, and supported our schools, we had an education system second to none that didn’t leave students in life-long debt. We had money to repair and rebuild our roads, to take on new technologies, to stay on the cutting edge of exploration, to keep our parks and rivers safe from pollution. This country is the richest country on earth, that hasn’t changed, it has around 500 billionaires that “know” the value of a dollar. They “know” that investing in the lobbying of lawmakers is probably the most profitable of investments. No one is asking them to give it all up. The taxed enough already crowd, that is so defensive when raising taxes is considered to pay for debt, that they are ready to “drown the government in a bathtub” rather than sacrifice at all.
No, I didn’t pick 1996. The GOP has fought any form of support for the poor since the Great Depression. My exact statement was “The War on Poverty reduced income inequality — until the GOP (aided and abetted by Clinton) started killing it.”LBJ, whatever his other faults, got a lot of programs passed, practically speaking, extending the New Deal to a new generation. The GOP fought it all the way, but lost for a while. They’ve regained control and have steadily chipped away at what we had, but it did make a difference for a while, and would again.
The purpose of poverty-reduction programs is to enable people to become self-sufficient, contributing members of society.
Mr. Johnson’s Great Society was an idea that never quite materialized the way it was supposed to, because the Viet Nam “conflict” cost so much that implementation (including oversight) was underfunded. Fifty years later, we find ourselves in the same place: costs of war ensure that we “have no money” to invest in our future.
Over 50 years, improper oversight and questionable additions to the program have created an expensive monster that is a far cry from the original model. To be fair, we can say the EXACT same thing about the Pentagon and the military budget.
For example, the Navy purchases new tool sets for its mechanics every few years. There may be nothing wrong with the current ones, but that’s what they do. If the mechanics take the old tools home to use there, it’s theft from the military. Therefore, when the ship goes to sea, the old tools are dropped overboard. This is just one stupid example. There are probably thousands.
Another one: the Department of Energy was created in the 1970s to find alternatives to fossil fuels. How well has that turned out? And how much have we spent on that department over time?
We are awash in tax revenue. We just spend our money unwisely, and we often don’t have the slightest clue about where the most waste is. However, I will submit that flailing around in the dark, assuming which boogeyman to blame, is not the answer.
Talk about responsibility: how quickly we forget the $275K that the last head of the Interior Department spent to upgrade his office, including a freezer in his bathroom next to the shower. Why is this less important than a welfare cheat (who I guarantee will take significantly longer to “earn” that kind of benefit, if he/she can throughout his/her entire lifetime)?
Each department head needs to go through each department, and cut fraud and waste surgically. This would essentially be a total audit of the federal government. States would benefit from this, too. Until this is done, nothing significant or beneficial will be accomplished, and we will all fight over who’s to blame based solely on our personal prejudices.
In fairness, the picture isn’t quite right, but current “GOPers” would deny their own history. Nixon signed NEPA, the Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act, legislation that actually CREATED JOBS, they didn’t “kill” jobs. Those acts actually worked on resolving, and solving, problems with, and caused by, poverty.
GHW Bush signed the ADA, another act that “leveled the playing field” for folks with disabilities, and made job CREATION a goal, because ACCESS to JOBS was mandated by the Act.
But of course these JOB CREATING bills pushed by Republicans, also in some case reduced PROFIT MARGINS, not eliminating by any means actual profits, for corporate America, and today are cursed by TEA nuts and others on the “right” who are “middle class, blue collars”, ignoring the leash that corporations have firmly linked into those collars. Ignorance is bliss.
We very well maybe but that has nothing, ZERO, to do with LBJ’s “War on Poverty” and the programs that evolved from it. If anything these programs have perpetuated poverty and been failures..The lastest idiocy is Obama’s “Promise Zones.” He announced a few days ago this one. He wants to essentially bring back LBJ’s disasterous failure of a government program the “Model Cities Program.”“Promise Zones” is virtually the exact same thing. It is insane to think doing the same thing over and over again will eventually work even though it has failed every previous time..Yes, poverty is a problem, but government is most likely not the solution..For example, single motherhood is the SINGLE largest cause of poverty in the US today. The government through tax policy, social and welfare programs, and other government programs actually encourages single motherhood by penalizing marriage and couples.
My 30 year old nephew who inherited a building company recently told me that he was angry with the welfare state. He explained that he couldn’t keep people on the job. They would work long enough to qualify to go back on unemployment , stay there until it ran out then come back to work. This kid was standing in his 3/4 million dollar house telling me that he paid his employees so little that they were better off on welfare, and he thought that THEY should be ashamed of themselves. And, he was serious!!!!
Reasons, you present a false dilemma. It doesn’t matter if someone is impoverished and then has children or is impoverished by having children. The reason I presented was that the mother was SINGLE..I agree that the welfare system encouraged women to be single when poor as it made them eligible for more welfare than if married. It also still remains that this is the largest single cause of poverty in the US today..So, people can whine about education needing more money, or this or that government program but until the underlying causes of poverty and poor performance of children due to their home life are addressed in a way that makes parents, a father and mother, both take a responsible part in that child’s upbringing expect poverty to continue to be a growing problem.
I am sorry to have upset you so much. I thought I was trying to lift the discussion, but evidently not to your liking. I will try to make my future posts more worthy.
(Full disclosure: I don’t have a freezer in my personal office. Nor do I have need for a shower at my office. I have one at home. And if I had an unlimited government expense account, I am pretty sure I would not abuse it by putting in a shower and a freezer. You are welcome to feel differently. It’s still a free country, so they say.)
Motivemagus over 10 years ago
Oh, for God’s sake. You people don’t live in reality. The War on Poverty reduced income inequality — until the GOP (aided and abetted by Clinton) started killing it.
WestNYC Premium Member over 10 years ago
The problem with the Democrats is that they wish to finance the war on poverty entirely with debt. They are too cowardly to raise the taxes necessary to pay for these ‘wonderful’ programs. Shame on them.
Enoki over 10 years ago
Is there more or less poverty in America today than in 1964? More or less people gettting food stamps? More or less of the potential work force employed? More or less people on unemployment or welfare?
feverjr Premium Member over 10 years ago
Back when we had a progressive tax, and supported our schools, we had an education system second to none that didn’t leave students in life-long debt. We had money to repair and rebuild our roads, to take on new technologies, to stay on the cutting edge of exploration, to keep our parks and rivers safe from pollution. This country is the richest country on earth, that hasn’t changed, it has around 500 billionaires that “know” the value of a dollar. They “know” that investing in the lobbying of lawmakers is probably the most profitable of investments. No one is asking them to give it all up. The taxed enough already crowd, that is so defensive when raising taxes is considered to pay for debt, that they are ready to “drown the government in a bathtub” rather than sacrifice at all.
Motivemagus over 10 years ago
No, I didn’t pick 1996. The GOP has fought any form of support for the poor since the Great Depression. My exact statement was “The War on Poverty reduced income inequality — until the GOP (aided and abetted by Clinton) started killing it.”LBJ, whatever his other faults, got a lot of programs passed, practically speaking, extending the New Deal to a new generation. The GOP fought it all the way, but lost for a while. They’ve regained control and have steadily chipped away at what we had, but it did make a difference for a while, and would again.
I Play One On TV over 10 years ago
The purpose of poverty-reduction programs is to enable people to become self-sufficient, contributing members of society.
Mr. Johnson’s Great Society was an idea that never quite materialized the way it was supposed to, because the Viet Nam “conflict” cost so much that implementation (including oversight) was underfunded. Fifty years later, we find ourselves in the same place: costs of war ensure that we “have no money” to invest in our future.
Over 50 years, improper oversight and questionable additions to the program have created an expensive monster that is a far cry from the original model. To be fair, we can say the EXACT same thing about the Pentagon and the military budget.
For example, the Navy purchases new tool sets for its mechanics every few years. There may be nothing wrong with the current ones, but that’s what they do. If the mechanics take the old tools home to use there, it’s theft from the military. Therefore, when the ship goes to sea, the old tools are dropped overboard. This is just one stupid example. There are probably thousands.
Another one: the Department of Energy was created in the 1970s to find alternatives to fossil fuels. How well has that turned out? And how much have we spent on that department over time?
We are awash in tax revenue. We just spend our money unwisely, and we often don’t have the slightest clue about where the most waste is. However, I will submit that flailing around in the dark, assuming which boogeyman to blame, is not the answer.
Talk about responsibility: how quickly we forget the $275K that the last head of the Interior Department spent to upgrade his office, including a freezer in his bathroom next to the shower. Why is this less important than a welfare cheat (who I guarantee will take significantly longer to “earn” that kind of benefit, if he/she can throughout his/her entire lifetime)?
Each department head needs to go through each department, and cut fraud and waste surgically. This would essentially be a total audit of the federal government. States would benefit from this, too. Until this is done, nothing significant or beneficial will be accomplished, and we will all fight over who’s to blame based solely on our personal prejudices.
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
In fairness, the picture isn’t quite right, but current “GOPers” would deny their own history. Nixon signed NEPA, the Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act, legislation that actually CREATED JOBS, they didn’t “kill” jobs. Those acts actually worked on resolving, and solving, problems with, and caused by, poverty.
GHW Bush signed the ADA, another act that “leveled the playing field” for folks with disabilities, and made job CREATION a goal, because ACCESS to JOBS was mandated by the Act.
But of course these JOB CREATING bills pushed by Republicans, also in some case reduced PROFIT MARGINS, not eliminating by any means actual profits, for corporate America, and today are cursed by TEA nuts and others on the “right” who are “middle class, blue collars”, ignoring the leash that corporations have firmly linked into those collars. Ignorance is bliss.
Enoki over 10 years ago
We very well maybe but that has nothing, ZERO, to do with LBJ’s “War on Poverty” and the programs that evolved from it. If anything these programs have perpetuated poverty and been failures..The lastest idiocy is Obama’s “Promise Zones.” He announced a few days ago this one. He wants to essentially bring back LBJ’s disasterous failure of a government program the “Model Cities Program.”“Promise Zones” is virtually the exact same thing. It is insane to think doing the same thing over and over again will eventually work even though it has failed every previous time..Yes, poverty is a problem, but government is most likely not the solution..For example, single motherhood is the SINGLE largest cause of poverty in the US today. The government through tax policy, social and welfare programs, and other government programs actually encourages single motherhood by penalizing marriage and couples.
Diane Lee Premium Member over 10 years ago
My 30 year old nephew who inherited a building company recently told me that he was angry with the welfare state. He explained that he couldn’t keep people on the job. They would work long enough to qualify to go back on unemployment , stay there until it ran out then come back to work. This kid was standing in his 3/4 million dollar house telling me that he paid his employees so little that they were better off on welfare, and he thought that THEY should be ashamed of themselves. And, he was serious!!!!
Enoki over 10 years ago
Reasons, you present a false dilemma. It doesn’t matter if someone is impoverished and then has children or is impoverished by having children. The reason I presented was that the mother was SINGLE..I agree that the welfare system encouraged women to be single when poor as it made them eligible for more welfare than if married. It also still remains that this is the largest single cause of poverty in the US today..So, people can whine about education needing more money, or this or that government program but until the underlying causes of poverty and poor performance of children due to their home life are addressed in a way that makes parents, a father and mother, both take a responsible part in that child’s upbringing expect poverty to continue to be a growing problem.
I Play One On TV over 10 years ago
I am sorry to have upset you so much. I thought I was trying to lift the discussion, but evidently not to your liking. I will try to make my future posts more worthy.
(Full disclosure: I don’t have a freezer in my personal office. Nor do I have need for a shower at my office. I have one at home. And if I had an unlimited government expense account, I am pretty sure I would not abuse it by putting in a shower and a freezer. You are welcome to feel differently. It’s still a free country, so they say.)