The War on Poverty Turns 50: Why Aren't We Winning?
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
The war on poverty in reality is a war on the middle class who pay taxes. Then the dems invent the "war on the middle class" and blame the usual suspects...republicans. ship of fools.
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
I just said it. The war on poverty was actually a war on the middle class.
We have won, our poor aren't as poor as other countries poor.
Rana, I would agree but might rephrase to "we are winning" and insert "many" before "other." And I truly believe this as I work with kids every day who are "poor" and see what they have. They aren't suffering and actually have quite a bit...cell phones, satellite TV, plenty of food (commodities and govt. lunch), Oklahoma Promise, etc. Nor do I begrudge them one bit of the government assistance they receive. I am proud that we as a country help them. Most of these kids are poor because of poor decisions (no pun intended) made by their parents but it isn't the kids' fault. This is where you see the democrat come out in me.
do you think that the repug instigated depression/recession might have had something to do with it?
Taft2016
Verified User
That fits in with what I always say; We have the world's richest poor people.
Unfortunately, it fulfills Ronald Reagan's prophecy about the welfare state being less of a safety net than a hammock.
wiseones2cents
Verified User
Take into consideration that the US currency is the global default currency, which means it is SUBSIDIZED socialist style by the rest of the world consumers. Also take into consideration that the US uses this subsidized currency to get stuff for next to nothing from less developed nations, and install puppet dictators to milk foreign resources dry? You will begin to understand why America is rich and most countries are poor.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
It is time for an exit strategy to this 50 year war
Taft2016
Verified User
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
and our poor weren't as poor as other countries prior to the war on poverty.
StormX
Banned
[h=1]That’s rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record[/h]
Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama.
Aides said Mr. Obama doesn’t plan to commemorate the anniversary Wednesday of Johnson’s speech in 1964, which gave rise to Medicaid, Head Start and a broad range of other federal anti-poverty programs. The president’s only public event Tuesday was a plea for Congress to approve extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, another reminder of the persistent economic troubles during Mr. Obama’s five years in office.
“What I think the American people are really looking for in 2014 is just a little bit of stability,” Mr. Obama said. Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.
The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.
About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.
President Obama’s anti-poverty efforts “are basically to give more people more free stuff,” said Robert Rector, a specialist on welfare and poverty at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“That’s exactly the opposite of what Johnson said,” Mr. Rector said. “Johnson’s goal was to make people prosperous and self-sufficient.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/
Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama.
Aides said Mr. Obama doesn’t plan to commemorate the anniversary Wednesday of Johnson’s speech in 1964, which gave rise to Medicaid, Head Start and a broad range of other federal anti-poverty programs. The president’s only public event Tuesday was a plea for Congress to approve extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, another reminder of the persistent economic troubles during Mr. Obama’s five years in office.
“What I think the American people are really looking for in 2014 is just a little bit of stability,” Mr. Obama said. Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.
The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.
About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.
President Obama’s anti-poverty efforts “are basically to give more people more free stuff,” said Robert Rector, a specialist on welfare and poverty at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“That’s exactly the opposite of what Johnson said,” Mr. Rector said. “Johnson’s goal was to make people prosperous and self-sufficient.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
We have transferred almost $30 trillion in the democrat party war to increase poverty and they have succeeded
Isn't that as it should be in a land blessed with many natural resources?
Poverty has been reduced by 50% because of our programs.