The War on Poverty seems to be working OK. Once you factor in the various forms of government assistance that poor people receive, the actual poverty rate is pretty damn low, and close to zero by some measures.
The War on Poverty seems to be working OK. Once you factor in the various forms of government assistance that poor people receive, the actual poverty rate is pretty damn low, and close to zero by some measures.
I can't imagine the number of seniors that would be dying without it. People laim our poverty isn't as bad as third world countries and I think it is because of our ability to provide for the least of our brethren.
the poverty rate is about 13.5%... which is pretty much on par for the last 40 years. While I agree the assistance programs that exist today do a good job of keeping them from starving etc... they are not doing a good job of getting people out of poverty. It is in that area we are failing.
Well, I guess there are two separate issues you're dealing with here. First, whether there is much actual poverty in the United States once you factor in the various forms of public assitances to people living at the margin. On this score, the War on Poverty has been tremendously effective. Maybe there's a better way to achieve this within the confines of our economic system but I very much doubt it.
Second, whether the various forms of government assistance help people out of poverty. On this score, I'd agree that the current system is suboptimal, but I think the way to achieve that is in the form of more, different assistance. Like free daycare, free college and the like. Expanding the current social welfare state is a non-starter though.
As an aside, do you know of any solid research on whether people remain dependent on government assistance versus different people cycling into and out of pverty over time?
why should I when it's irrelevant
The War on Poverty seems to be working OK. Once you factor in the various forms of government assistance that poor people receive, the actual poverty rate is pretty damn low, and close to zero by some measures.
I would question whether or not it was 'working' then since I'm not happy to be paying for it. It's not 'winning' in my opinion if other people are paying to support them. It's certainly not a part of the solution that I want to see perpetuated.
You don't need the foods Lorca listed, in fact, you would live better without them.
Is it truly a solution to poverty if other people pay for your food, shelter, bills, etc when that money is not earned? Arent you still poor? Has your income level been raised?
Is it truly a solution to poverty if other people pay for your food, shelter, bills, etc when that money is not earned? Arent you still poor? Has your income level been raised?
Can you cite those comparative cost statistics, please?
because more information and knowledge is always useful in debates and responses.
Is it?
Can you give me a number, or not?
because more information and knowledge is always useful in debates and responses.
Is it?
No, but your basic needs of food and shelter have been met and most on welfare are the elderly, children and the disabled, do you propose we make seniors work and bring back child labor?