It's time to try something new. Why not just give cash payments as a match
to income? More money would get to those who need it.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results."Albert EinsteinI think it's time to try
something else, like what worked some 230 years ago by our founding fathers.
To see how things can look without government help or intervention in the form
of taxation and regulation, look at Bangladesh and Somalia. Those are places
fairly free of intervention, where you can choose to pay almost nothing for work
and where there are few regulations. And as a result, most people have nothing
and everyone is dirt poor. You never know if that next meal is going to poison
you and you really have no other choices in work or what's available to
The war on poverty reminds me of trying to solve a quadratic equation such as
x^2-6x+5=0 like this: x^2=6x-5 or x(x-6)=-5. Both approaches lead nowhere, you
need to notice that x^2-6x+9 = (x-3)^2 and then the solution is obvious. You
cannot attack the symptom, you need to hit the root cause. In this case, the
root cause is the disintegration of the family, If we do not address it, we can
spend a lot of time and money on the equivalent of x(x-6)=-5 approach.
Poverty issues are not going to be solved until there is more incentive for
people to work. You can't just give someone money, food, and housing and
say they are out of poverty... as long as they are receiving handouts they will
always be considered as being in poverty. Getting out of poverty requires
working for ones own money, managing that money, and putting some into assets
and savings. Current welfare tactics do not accomplish any of that.
I am 100% sure I need help people who required to meet their basic need. Key
word here BASIC. I am afraid that the "War on Poverty" is not winning
because: Too much wellfare which leads to bigger government and higher overall
tax rate, will (and aleady showed) leads to lower productivity rate for USA as a
whole, which then leads to lower competition power over the world then higher
unemployeement inside USA. Therefore, may we conclude that more wellfare
government program is NOT the answer for "War on Poverty"?
If the figures in the article are correct, in 1964, when President Johnson
committed to the war on poverty, America's population was about 195
million, with 19%, about 37 million Americans, living below the poverty level.
Today, with a US Population of about 310 million, the nations poor number
46,500,000, about 15% of the total population. Is it a measure of success that
the percentage has decreased, or a measure of failure that after fifty years we
have an additional 7.5 million men, women and children living in poverty? Should not the question be: "What, if anything, have we learned that could
help decrease the levels of poverty?" Surely, in fifty years of
experience, we should have learned something.
Christ said the the poor will always be with us. But he did not say we should
stop trying to help. The conservative approach is to do little or nothing. I
reject that. The war on poverty will never end, and had we done nothing, things
would have been worse. There were some who rose out of their poverty, and those
success stories make it worth it. And I don't see any discussion about how
programs and efforts were reduced, gutted or eliminated along the way. For
example, Reagan cut programs for the mentally ill, and the homeless population
dramatically increased. So, the war on poverty was not fought well, and the
right wing has to take most of the fault for that. One other thing. Statistics
show two things. The poverty level is falling around the world compared to the
past. Second, reducing income disparity is a key factor in reducing poverty,
and again, Republican policies are the worst thing to address the problems of
people. The GOP is actually about serving the rich, those who already have, at
the expense of the majority and especially the poor.
In the 50 years of the war on poverty, there are only two constants: Government
has constantly grown the welfare program, and constantly raised the minimum
wage. During that time the poverty issues in our country have only gotten
worse. Draw your own conclusions from that.
Government welfare does not lift people out of poverty, it practically
guarantees a permanent underclass of poverty because it does nothing to fix the
reasons people are poor; addictions, no marketable jobs skills, having children
out of wedlock, and yes, in some cases, laziness. The numbers do not lie!
The best war on poverty is a job. This administration seems bent on preventing
any improvement in the economy. We are swimming in red tape, and the usual
Democratic tax and spend method of governing.
We have robbed Trillions from taxpayers to fight this war, using an unwinnable
tactic. When I bring this up with left wing friends, typically their first
response is "Well do we just let everyone die?". Of course not. Even
conservatives, don't like seeing people die, especially when there is
something that can be done about it.Had we used that money to create
zero to a very low interest loan ratio for low income people They could use the
loans to go to school, start up a business, or if they came up with another idea
we could be open to that. We could provide Work Force Services with people that
can train, give free classes and teach how a business operates or just offer
loans to certain degrees that are in demand.No free ride. If you
have children, single etc. No problem. I would purchase farms that these people
can stay at. They can work a minimal amount of hours each day, as long as they
getting their education or starting up their business. Give a deadline. Provide
daycare.If we can get people off of welfare, then we're winning
the war. .