after 50 years, the War on Poverty is over, and we lost (1 Viewer)

[tommyboy]

On Jan. 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson used his State of the Union address to announce an ambitious government undertaking. “This administration today, here and now,” he thundered, “declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”
Fifty years later, we’re losing that war. Fifteen percent of Americans still live in poverty, according to the official census poverty report for 2012, unchanged since the mid-1960s. Liberals argue that we aren’t spending enough money on poverty-fighting programs, but that’s not the problem. In reality, we’re losing the war on poverty because we have forgotten the original goal, as LBJ stated it half a century ago: “to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities.”
The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans. . . . If converted to cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all official poverty in the U.S.....
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303345104579282760272285556

Time to declare failure and move on.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

My link

 

[dozer]

She was really hot on Survivor.

 

[DiStefano]

Only one problem. They will fight tooth and nail to keep an acquired "right". That "right" is to have taxpayers provide you with AC, an HD TV, connection to wifi, a cell phone, and food stamps which you can use on lobster and steak. We've lost the war, and are permanently defeated.

 

[Big Cat]

People who live in poverty in this country need to travel elsewhere to see what poverty is.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

We surrendered the War on Poverty when Nixon closed the Office of Economic Opportunity. Before that, the War on Poverty had cut the poverty rate in America in half.

 

[E Street Brat]

I started to read "Someplace America" "http://www.amazon.com/Someplace-Like-America-Tales-Depression/dp/0520274512 But closed the book when I read about the poor homeless guy that had to rig car batteries to get his television to work.

 

[Soonerman]

We surrendered the War on Poverty when Nixon closed the Office of Economic Opportunity. Before that, the War on Poverty had cut the poverty rate in America in half.

Not true. The decline in the poverty rate from the end of WW2 to the passage of the Great Society was much more rapid than the decline afterward.

 

[E Street Brat]

We surrendered the War on Poverty when Nixon closed the Office of Economic Opportunity. Before that, the War on Poverty had cut the poverty rate in America in half.

Not true. The decline in the poverty rate from the end of WW2 to the passage of the Great Society was much more rapid than the decline afterward.

Also, If wiki is correct.

Although OEO/CSA was transferred to the Office of Community Services in HHS by President Reagan in 1981, most of the agency's programs continued to operate either by HHS or by other federal agencies

 

[jonessed]

It needs to go the way of the War on Drugs.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

So if a person is not living in a cardboard box they aren't considered poor?

 

[Politician Spock]

So if a person is not living in a cardboard box they aren't considered poor?

What type of cardboard?

 

[roadkill1292]

Time for the BIG, Tommy.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

We surrendered the War on Poverty when Nixon closed the Office of Economic Opportunity. Before that, the War on Poverty had cut the poverty rate in America in half.

Not true. The decline in the poverty rate from the end of WW2 to the passage of the Great Society was much more rapid than the decline afterward.

Also, If wiki is correct.

Although OEO/CSA was transferred to the Office of Community Services in HHS by President Reagan in 1981, most of the agency's programs continued to operate either by HHS or by other federal agencies

If you look to the right of that quote, you'll see that welfare peaked in the early 70s and have steadily declined. From a high of 238 to the 154 by 2005.

 

[Dr Oadi]

So if a person is not living in a cardboard box they aren't considered poor?

You have a trailer? You have mac n cheese? You ain't po.

 

[joffer]

I prefer the War on Christmas myself. That needs to be a year-round effort.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Doesn't America have enough wars going on? Can't we just reason with poverty?

 

[Sarnoff]

Good.

We should round up the poor by the busload and ship 'em to a country with real poverty. Somewhere in Central America. Then, they wouldn't be so out of place. They'd fit right in and be fine.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Good.

We should round up the poor by the busload and ship 'em to a country with real poverty. Somewhere in Central America. Then, they wouldn't be so out of place. They'd fit right in and be fine.

Or we could use them as fuel.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We surrendered the War on Poverty when Nixon closed the Office of Economic Opportunity. Before that, the War on Poverty had cut the poverty rate in America in half.

Not true. The decline in the poverty rate from the end of WW2 to the passage of the Great Society was much more rapid than the decline afterward.

Well that's a heck of a statement.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

We surrendered the War on Poverty when Nixon closed the Office of Economic Opportunity. Before that, the War on Poverty had cut the poverty rate in America in half.

Not true. The decline in the poverty rate from the end of WW2 to the passage of the Great Society was much more rapid than the decline afterward.

I can't make those numbers work at all. The War on Poverty was announced in 1964. At that time the poverty rate was 19%. It's true that the (not official) poverty rate that some estimate had fallen from 32% to 22% by 1958. And that the official statistic had fallen from 22% in 1959 to 19%. But even if I accept those numbers, the drop from 19% to 11.1% in 1973 (8 pts in 9 years) is steeper than the slope from 1947 to 1964 (13 pts in 17 years).

 

[Sarnoff]

Good.

We should round up the poor by the busload and ship 'em to a country with real poverty. Somewhere in Central America. Then, they wouldn't be so out of place. They'd fit right in and be fine.

Or we could use them as fuel.

No schtick, a lot of problems in this world would be solved pretty quickly if we just started eating the poor.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

On Jan. 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson used his State of the Union address to announce an ambitious government undertaking. “This administration today, here and now,” he thundered, “declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”
Fifty years later, we’re losing that war. Fifteen percent of Americans still live in poverty, according to the official census poverty report for 2012, unchanged since the mid-1960s. Liberals argue that we aren’t spending enough money on poverty-fighting programs, but that’s not the problem. In reality, we’re losing the war on poverty because we have forgotten the original goal, as LBJ stated it half a century ago: “to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities.”
The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans. . . . If converted to cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all official poverty in the U.S.....
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303345104579282760272285556

Time to declare failure and move on.

Sounds more like we're doubling down with the ACA.

 

[Soonerman]

We surrendered the War on Poverty when Nixon closed the Office of Economic Opportunity. Before that, the War on Poverty had cut the poverty rate in America in half.

Not true. The decline in the poverty rate from the end of WW2 to the passage of the Great Society was much more rapid than the decline afterward.

I can't make those numbers work at all. The War on Poverty was announced in 1964. At that time the poverty rate was 19%. It's true that the (not official) poverty rate that some estimate had fallen from 32% to 22% by 1958. And that the official statistic had fallen from 22% in 1959 to 19%. But even if I accept those numbers, the drop from 19% to 11.1% in 1973 (8 pts in 9 years) is steeper than the slope from 1947 to 1964 (13 pts in 17 years).

P 23 of this study

http://irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp116698.pdf

Also here:

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/us-poverty-rate-how-the-great-society-programs-reversed-its-decline/

 

[spreagle]

We need to have Homestead Act II ... for abandoned properties in the inner cities rather than the countryside. A freaking free for all. Occupy an abandoned house and maintain it/pay taxes for 5 years and it's yours.

 

[jonessed]

We surrendered the War on Poverty when Nixon closed the Office of Economic Opportunity. Before that, the War on Poverty had cut the poverty rate in America in half.

Not true. The decline in the poverty rate from the end of WW2 to the passage of the Great Society was much more rapid than the decline afterward.

I can't make those numbers work at all. The War on Poverty was announced in 1964. At that time the poverty rate was 19%. It's true that the (not official) poverty rate that some estimate had fallen from 32% to 22% by 1958. And that the official statistic had fallen from 22% in 1959 to 19%. But even if I accept those numbers, the drop from 19% to 11.1% in 1973 (8 pts in 9 years) is steeper than the slope from 1947 to 1964 (13 pts in 17 years).

He might be using '65 which is when they started implementing the legislation

 

[DiStefano]

Good.

We should round up the poor by the busload and ship 'em to a country with real poverty. Somewhere in Central America. Then, they wouldn't be so out of place. They'd fit right in and be fine.

Or we could use them as fuel.

The greens wouldn't like it because it because they are carbon rich.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

So if a person is not living in a cardboard box they aren't considered poor?

You have a trailer? You have mac n cheese? You ain't po.

Did he have hands? Did he have a face? Then it wasn't us.

 

[Fennis]

Good.

We should round up the poor by the busload and ship 'em to a country with real poverty. Somewhere in Central America. Then, they wouldn't be so out of place. They'd fit right in and be fine.

Or we could use them as fuel.

No schtick, a lot of problems in this world would be solved pretty quickly if we just started eating the poor.

what about the ugly?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Good.

We should round up the poor by the busload and ship 'em to a country with real poverty. Somewhere in Central America. Then, they wouldn't be so out of place. They'd fit right in and be fine.

Or we could use them as fuel.

The greens wouldn't like it because it because they are carbon rich.

how would the browns like it?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Good.

We should round up the poor by the busload and ship 'em to a country with real poverty. Somewhere in Central America. Then, they wouldn't be so out of place. They'd fit right in and be fine.

Or we could use them as fuel.

The greens wouldn't like it because it because they are carbon rich.

how would the browns like it?

My guess is no matter how they felt about it, they still wouldn't make the playoffs.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Good.

We should round up the poor by the busload and ship 'em to a country with real poverty. Somewhere in Central America. Then, they wouldn't be so out of place. They'd fit right in and be fine.

Or we could use them as fuel.

No schtick, a lot of problems in this world would be solved pretty quickly if we just started eating the poor.

what about the ugly?

This is a resource I hadn't even thought of. If we combined our studies and developed a fuel made of ugly and/or homeless people, we could win a Nobel Prize!

 

[NCCommish]

Some of you should try being poor in America for a while. It ain't no fun. And I don't care if there are poorer people elsewhere that isn't the ####### point. This is the richest country to ever exist. To not help the least of us is an indictment on our national character. By they way all you Jesus types need to re-read your Bible. This time try something other than a few sentences in Leviticus.

 

[bostonfred]

Serious question for people who want to end the war on poverty. What would be the minimum level you'd allow people to go? Homeless but able to find occasional shelter, funded entirely by charity, and let the charities pass out any meals or clothes? what about areas with low charitable giving? Let those people die on the streets? Do you want poor children to be malnourished, not get their vaccinations, etc.? What about clothes? How do you get a job if you don't have clothes? Transportation? Can they get a bus pass? What about food? Do they eat gruel and stand in lines for gubmint cheese? Or do you just want to cut way back on foodstamps? What would you consider a reasonable line for the least we would provide for people, and how would you actually recommend making it happen (and no, saying that charities would handle it does not count as a plan unless you can explain where the money comes from, and how much the government ends up subsidizing through tax breaks instead of direct payment).

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

How do you get a job if you don't have clothes?

Depends on the job I'd imagine.

 

[worrierking]

Here is an interesting article from Atlantic.

I agree with the author that the statistics on poverty and how it is measured are way out-of-date and pretty much useless when discussing the success or failure of poverty programs.

I do not necessarily agree with his conclusion that the war on poverty has been a success, because he is measuring success differently than I would. He basically says, "We have given a ton of money to poor people and that has reduced their poverty." I don't think that is a good way to define success. I think a good way to define success would be saying we have created conditions in which people can easily get out of poverty if they try (without giving them reasons not to try).

 

[TheIronSheik]

Serious question for people who want to end the war on poverty. What would be the minimum level you'd allow people to go? Homeless but able to find occasional shelter, funded entirely by charity, and let the charities pass out any meals or clothes? what about areas with low charitable giving? Let those people die on the streets? Do you want poor children to be malnourished, not get their vaccinations, etc.? What about clothes? How do you get a job if you don't have clothes? Transportation? Can they get a bus pass? What about food? Do they eat gruel and stand in lines for gubmint cheese? Or do you just want to cut way back on foodstamps? What would you consider a reasonable line for the least we would provide for people, and how would you actually recommend making it happen (and no, saying that charities would handle it does not count as a plan unless you can explain where the money comes from, and how much the government ends up subsidizing through tax breaks instead of direct payment).

Wait. Are people serious when they say they want to end the "war on poverty?" I seriously thought everyone was joking around.

 

[DiStefano]

Serious question for people who want to end the war on poverty. What would be the minimum level you'd allow people to go? Homeless but able to find occasional shelter, funded entirely by charity, and let the charities pass out any meals or clothes? what about areas with low charitable giving? Let those people die on the streets? Do you want poor children to be malnourished, not get their vaccinations, etc.? What about clothes? How do you get a job if you don't have clothes? Transportation? Can they get a bus pass? What about food? Do they eat gruel and stand in lines for gubmint cheese? Or do you just want to cut way back on foodstamps? What would you consider a reasonable line for the least we would provide for people, and how would you actually recommend making it happen (and no, saying that charities would handle it does not count as a plan unless you can explain where the money comes from, and how much the government ends up subsidizing through tax breaks instead of direct payment).

Wait. Are people serious when they say they want to end the "war on poverty?" I seriously thought everyone was joking around.

All I am saying, is give peace a chance.

 

[tdog]

My understanding is that people would like to end the war on poverty, declare it a failure, but keep social security and medicare, the two most successful poverty programs ever created.

 

[The_Man]

I really don't understand what vision people are putting forward when they talk about ending unemployment benefits and cutting off aid to the poor. Unemployment is stuck at something like 8% and there are three applicants for every single job opening. What are people supposed to do when they are trying to find a job that will support their family, but can't, because those jobs don't exist?

It feels like the vision is a Darwinian social dystopia. The strong and powerful will continue to thrive, and the poor will be left to their own devices, even if it means they don't survive.

 

[jonessed]

Serious question for people who want to end the war on poverty. What would be the minimum level you'd allow people to go? Homeless but able to find occasional shelter, funded entirely by charity, and let the charities pass out any meals or clothes? what about areas with low charitable giving? Let those people die on the streets? Do you want poor children to be malnourished, not get their vaccinations, etc.? What about clothes? How do you get a job if you don't have clothes? Transportation? Can they get a bus pass? What about food? Do they eat gruel and stand in lines for gubmint cheese? Or do you just want to cut way back on foodstamps? What would you consider a reasonable line for the least we would provide for people, and how would you actually recommend making it happen (and no, saying that charities would handle it does not count as a plan unless you can explain where the money comes from, and how much the government ends up subsidizing through tax breaks instead of direct payment).

Wait. Are people serious when they say they want to end the "war on poverty?" I seriously thought everyone was joking around.

This thread is in it's end-of-life stage where it devolves into hyperbole, histrionics, and strawmen.

 

[roadkill1292]

Serious question for people who want to end the war on poverty. What would be the minimum level you'd allow people to go? Homeless but able to find occasional shelter, funded entirely by charity, and let the charities pass out any meals or clothes? what about areas with low charitable giving? Let those people die on the streets? Do you want poor children to be malnourished, not get their vaccinations, etc.? What about clothes? How do you get a job if you don't have clothes? Transportation? Can they get a bus pass? What about food? Do they eat gruel and stand in lines for gubmint cheese? Or do you just want to cut way back on foodstamps? What would you consider a reasonable line for the least we would provide for people, and how would you actually recommend making it happen (and no, saying that charities would handle it does not count as a plan unless you can explain where the money comes from, and how much the government ends up subsidizing through tax breaks instead of direct payment).

Wait. Are people serious when they say they want to end the "war on poverty?" I seriously thought everyone was joking around.

This thread is in it's end-of-life stage where it devolves into hyperbole, histrionics, and strawmen.

Have I missed the part where we all make fun of conservatives or is that still to come?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Serious question for people who want to end the war on poverty. What would be the minimum level you'd allow people to go? Homeless but able to find occasional shelter, funded entirely by charity, and let the charities pass out any meals or clothes? what about areas with low charitable giving? Let those people die on the streets? Do you want poor children to be malnourished, not get their vaccinations, etc.? What about clothes? How do you get a job if you don't have clothes? Transportation? Can they get a bus pass? What about food? Do they eat gruel and stand in lines for gubmint cheese? Or do you just want to cut way back on foodstamps? What would you consider a reasonable line for the least we would provide for people, and how would you actually recommend making it happen (and no, saying that charities would handle it does not count as a plan unless you can explain where the money comes from, and how much the government ends up subsidizing through tax breaks instead of direct payment).

Wait. Are people serious when they say they want to end the "war on poverty?" I seriously thought everyone was joking around.

This thread is in it's end-of-life stage where it devolves into hyperbole, histrionics, and strawmen.

Have I missed the part where we all make fun of conservatives or is that still to come?

Stick around long enough and it'll turn into making fun of both sides.

 

[humpback]

Some of you should try being poor in America for a while. It ain't no fun. And I don't care if there are poorer people elsewhere that isn't the ####### point. This is the richest country to ever exist. To not help the least of us is an indictment on our national character. By they way all you Jesus types need to re-read your Bible. This time try something other than a few sentences in Leviticus.

Do you think hyperbole helps or hurts your cause?

 

[igbomb]

I really don't understand what vision people are putting forward when they talk about ending unemployment benefits and cutting off aid to the poor. Unemployment is stuck at something like 8% and there are three applicants for every single job opening. What are people supposed to do when they are trying to find a job that will support their family, but can't, because those jobs don't exist?

It feels like the vision is a Darwinian social dystopia. The strong and powerful will continue to thrive, and the poor will be left to their own devices, even if it means they don't survive.

I'm with you. I know some folks truly have a fend for yourself attitude, regardless of outcome for some. But the conservative Christians, I've never been able to wrap my head around what they think would happen if we cut off assistance programs. Are they really ok with people dying in the streets or dying in their homes because they don't have heat or can't get a good meal? Do they think that charities will magically spring up and take care of all of these people? Or do they think that the entire poverty issue is one of motivation and that all of these people will rush out and find a job tomorrow if we just give them a push.

As a practicing Catholic, I run into other parishioners constantly that talk as if everyone on assistance is just lazy and that these programs should be ended. For the life of me, I can't see how they justify that with their faith.

 

[mr roboto]

Some of you should try being poor in America for a while. It ain't no fun. And I don't care if there are poorer people elsewhere that isn't the ####### point. This is the richest country to ever exist. To not help the least of us is an indictment on our national character. By they way all you Jesus types need to re-read your Bible. This time try something other than a few sentences in Leviticus.

I'm sorry, but when did you turn into such a partisan hack?

 

[TPW]

I really don't understand what vision people are putting forward when they talk about ending unemployment benefits and cutting off aid to the poor. Unemployment is stuck at something like 8% and there are three applicants for every single job opening. What are people supposed to do when they are trying to find a job that will support their family, but can't, because those jobs don't exist?

It feels like the vision is a Darwinian social dystopia. The strong and powerful will continue to thrive, and the poor will be left to their own devices, even if it means they don't survive.

I'm with you. I know some folks truly have a fend for yourself attitude, regardless of outcome for some. But the conservative Christians, I've never been able to wrap my head around what they think would happen if we cut off assistance programs. Are they really ok with people dying in the streets or dying in their homes because they don't have heat or can't get a good meal? Do they think that charities will magically spring up and take care of all of these people? Or do they think that the entire poverty issue is one of motivation and that all of these people will rush out and find a job tomorrow if we just give them a push.

As a practicing Catholic, I run into other parishioners constantly that talk as if everyone on assistance is just lazy and that these programs should be ended. For the life of me, I can't see how they justify that with their faith.

What I think also as a practicing Catholic is that if we continue along the path we're on the cut offs are going to happen regardless as our profligate federal spending burns off generations worth of collective wealth at a meteoric rate.

The wise aren't arguing whether or not to trim programs, they're preparing for that eventuality.

 

[Eminence]

Good.

We should round up the poor by the busload and ship 'em to a country with real poverty. Somewhere in Central America. Then, they wouldn't be so out of place. They'd fit right in and be fine.

Or we could use them as fuel.

Lmfao.

 

[Grahamburn]

$500 cash to any male American citizen under the age of 35 for voluntarily undergoing a government funded vasectomy. The "war on poverty" would be over in 20 years.