Published: Wednesday, Jan. 8 2014 1:45 p.m. MST
War on Poverty would be best fought if the government got out of the way and let
the economy flurish.
War on Poverty is another name for trying to micro manage success. There is not
enough money in the world to pay people to become successful
First off, the U.S. point at which a person or family is considered impoverished
is still a pretty good life. No one is starving. Most have homes, cars, cell
phones, TVs ect. Second, I would hope that readers of this article took
good note of one of the causes of poverty, namely, single parent households.
Democrats know that single woman/parent are more likely to vote for them. So
does anyone really believe that Democrats would want to see all women,
especially single mothers, married? They'd lose too many votes. The
Democrats have fashioned a great system where they help create and keep people
dependent upon the government. I mean does anyone think it is just a
coincidence that under Obama food stamps have skyrocketed? The government even
advertises for people to sign up. The Democrats are not the answer to poverty
in America, they are the enablers of it. Without people being told they are in
need of government to live, the Democrats would lose a lot of the vote.
Every action taken by government to help people, is the bi-product of action
taken by the government to provide financial gain to some businessmen. This is
true even when the action for the people is the stated purpose of the action.
This is true because only the voice of businessmen controls government. Poverty is the natural consequence of uncontrolled capitalism, when
there are big winners there will be losers. All wealth is created by the
physical and mental labor of human beings, and is limited by the number of
humans, technology and the system of distribution within the society. If the
system allows some to hoard the wealth, the excess of some will be balanced by
the deficiency of others. Government could control capitalism
except for the fact that it is the people who abuse capitalism who control
government. When the plight of people becomes so miserable, they will try to
change the control of the system by rebellion and revolution. But it never
seems to have a lasting effect. If we would end the historical cycle of
revolution and temporary change we will have to allow government to control
Business and allow people to control the government.
I would say there are varying levels of success. The war on poverty for
seniors has been a resounding success...but poverty rates dropping from near 40%
down to a little over 8% for those over 55. That is a significant improvement
in anyones book. On the other hand, poverty for those under the age
of 18 has dropped little from somewhere near 30% to hovering around 25% now.
So I would call it a mixed bag. Depending on age, race, geography,
and what ever, you get different results.No doubt heavy partisan
spin will accompany this.... but poverty really isn't a conservative or
progressive issue - it effects all.
Fifty years and twenty trillion dollars and what have we got for our money? I
came from a poor household but I worked hard, spent wisely and today I have a
good life as I approach the golden years. I believe if I can do it, anybody can
you just have to work for it.Quit trying to fix it for us and just get out
of our way and let us do it ourselves.
Let me disagree with Ultra Bob.Capitalists win by creating wealth,
not by taking it from the poor. When a capitalist builds a factory that employs
workers, everybody wins, workers and consumers as well as owners. You make it
sound as though the capitalist forces workers into the factory at gunpoint, and
compels customers to buy products they don't want. But coercion is the
domain of government, not capitalism. Capitalism is about voluntary transactions
in a free society. (I suspect Ultra Bob might be inclined to promote a system of
coercion where those in government, who are so much wiser and compassionate than
rabble like us, would make choices for us and prevent us from having to actually
compete to gain the favor of consumers. But this always ends badly.)Poverty is the consequence of several things, one of which is lack of
incentive. Government should be careful not to disincentive people, and that is
probably the greatest failing and unintended consequence of Johnson's war
on poverty which has eliminated to some degree both the sting and the stigma of
poverty. The result is a generation that feels the world owes it a living. It
Capitalism has created more wealth for more people than any other economic
system in history! It rewards creativity, innovation and personal achievement
and thus creates wealth, industry and vibrant economies where all the
ships in the harbor rise. Socialism (in all of its forms) must consume the
wealth of others and punishes achievement, innovation and creativity and thus
has created more poverty than any other economic system in history. N. Korea,
the former E. Germany, the former USSR,Cuba et al. Some say capitalism is unfair
because not everyone chooses to be creative and some choose not to achieve
personally so they lust for the property and the rewards of those who did
achieve and say how unfair things are! Capitalism is the ultimate freedom.
Socialism is the ultimate slavery. Socialism always eventually collapses because
sooner or later the architects always run out of the capitalist's money to
prop it up! $17.2 trillion national debt (soon to be $20 trillion) proves it!
The War on Poverty will never end but it's a battle that defines a
2nd tryRe:SCFan"First off, the U.S. point at which a
person or family is considered impoverished is still a pretty good life. No one
is starving. Most have homes, cars, cell phones, TVs ect."First
off, how do you know when that family acquired a car, TVs etc--they could be on
their way down and will be losing those things if the poverty continues. Second, from Robert Rector, writing for the (conservative) Heritage
Foundation:"But the living conditions of the average poor person
should not be taken to mean that all poor Americans live without hardship. There
is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. Roughly a third of poor
households do face material hardships such as overcrowding, intermittent food
shortages, or difficulty obtaining medical care."(Yeah, it is
really smart for Democrats to rely on the poorest to get into office, especially
when they can't/don't contribute to campaigns and are less likely to
Regardless of what we do, about 10 percent of the people will always need help.
Illness, age, mental disabilities, or just bad luck are behind this statistic,
and that means more than 30 million Americans. The moral measure of a society is
how well it handles this problem. The conservative answer is usually to abandon
them to the vagaries of the marketplace ("I was poor and I succeeded...blah
blah"). I prefer the liberal who at least tries to help.
Irony Guy. All liberals do is create dependency, they never cure poverty! Pay
your fast offerings and you will do more to really help poor people than all the
food stamps the government can print!
Actually if you're old (as many of the most right wing posters seem to be),
the "liberals" actually did quite a bit to help you. Without
"liberals", you wouldn't have health care. In the good old days,
old people couldn't afford health insurance. That's why
"liberals" came up with the idea of Medicare. "Liberals" also
came up with the idea of Social Security. You kind of like that I bet. And no,
unless you die pretty quickly after you retire, you didn't pay in anywhere
near what you're going to get out. So don't go on and on about how
"liberals" haven't done anything to help the poor. All you old
folks are living pretty well thanks to the war on poverty. For younger people
it's been a bit more of a mixed bag.
Wonder. Liberals never did anything for me except tax me to death, tell what to
do and call me greedy!
*'Marriage an important key to avoiding poverty' - By Jennifer A.
Marshall, The Heritage Foundation - Published by DSnews - 10/17/10
Waiting until marriage to have children is the second of three "golden
rules" for avoiding poverty that researchers identified over the years: (1)
graduate from high school; (2) marry before having children; and (3) get a
job.Actually, being married is even more significant than graduating from
high school for avoiding poverty. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The
Heritage Foundation, shows this in a new paper, "Marriage: America's
No. 1 Weapon Against Child Poverty." And Utah will spend $2
million dollars to fight marriage equality. Whoops...
Yea, 50 years of not only failed policies, but the destruction of minority
households. Now, rather than get rid of it lets do the liberal/progressive
thing and double down on it and put even more money and resources into the same
failed polices. The only difference is that we will make them bigger and more
powerful, that is how government works.
re:ThidBarker"Pay your fast offerings and you will do more to really
help poor people than all the food stamps the government can print!"I would like to see some statistics on how poor people fare with the LDS
welfare system/fast offerings compared to govt. programs such as foodstamps.
Can you provide some research which supports your claims?
Researchers found that:Recent research adds to the growing body of
evidence that promoting marriage is not the answer to the problems facing single
mothers and their children.A nationally representative study of more
than 7,000 women found that approximately 64 percent of the single mothers who
married were divorced by the time they reached age 35-44. More importantly,
single mothers who marry and later divorce are worse off economically than
single mothers who never marry. Even marriages that endure appear to offer few
health benefits to single mothers unless they are to the biological father of
their first child.There is growing consensus among researchers that
it would be more beneficial to convince women to delay childbirth rather than to
promote marriage. But even this seemingly uncontroversial policy is more
complicated than it sounds. A more promising approach is to focus on
reducing unintended or mistimed births. Approximately 79 percent of births to
unpartnered women under the age of 25 are unintended.("Promoting
Marriage Among Single Mothers: An Ineffective Weapon on the War on
@Thid Barker -- For the LDS poor, I totally agree that fast offerings are a
great supplement and aid. However, I don't think there's any amount
of fast offerings a ward or stake could make that would pay for all the health
care and other needs that poor members have. And that's just members.
What do you do about people who aren't members? Not everyone in the US
lives in Utah.
@Mountanman -- Glad to know you refuse to accept Medicare and Social Security.
You are standing on your principals!
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments