What I Learned in the Poverty War

[Burke]

I worked as a legal aid lawyer in Johnson's WOP in the late '60's.

What I saw was the federal govt financing the overthrow of our way of life.

[Row6]

Whatever problems there are with some people getting a free ride - no system is perfect and is always subject to someone scamming it - this stuff is fools manna for those who think the problem with America is bottom up, as if the high unemployment rate is because a bunch of people decided in 2008 that they'd rather make $275 a week sitting at home than working two or three or four times that amount at a job. That's not what happened folks.

[Lawdog88]

^^^ That doesn't address the continuing culture of the purposefuly unemployed.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

^^^ That doesn't address the continuing culture of the purposefuly unemployed.

That is a problem, but it is not THE problem - except to them and their families - or even close to it. Yes, there is a subculture of aimless poverty and to some extent dependency that is not amenable to easy solutions, but it is not driving our larger problems.

[Gatormb]

Originally Posted by vangator1

What do you do with those that refuse to work? Let them starve?

To quote Walter Williams (a black man) who recommends just that: "Starvation is a tremendous motivator."


Walter Edward Williams is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian views.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Row6

That is a problem, but it is not THE problem - except to them and their families - or even close to it. Yes, there is a subculture of aimless poverty and to some extent dependency that is not amenable to easy solutions, but it is not driving our larger problems.

Well, it is a problem and that's what this thread is about. So whatever other unrelated topics/problems you want to bring in to distract from the thread, just stop before you start.

There is absolutely nothing positive for society that results in allowing people to become dependent on handouts and creates a "subculture of aimless poverty."

[Gatormb]

Originally Posted by vangator1

What do you do with those that refuse to work? Let them starve?

Also might add it's biblical. In 2 Thes 3:10 the Apostle Paul teaches "If you don't work, you don't eat".

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by vangator1

What do you do with those that refuse to work? Let them starve?

The following does not apply to the lame, sick, elderly, the physically/mentally challenged, children, and primary care givers.

For one thing you do not reward those who do not want to work. Giving them food, clothing, and shelter just reenforces the motive not to work.

If they have children I say remove them from the parent or parents who refuse to work from the children.This my sound harsh but consider the a parent who refuses to work also gives up their position of being a parent when he/she/both refuse to work to provide for the family. At the same time we need to provide the dependents and the care givers the necessary resources.

Also the people who do not chose to work should be prohibited from panhandling. If they are convicted of a crime they need to be in prison/jail. While incarcerated the need to grow/cook their own food, maintain the prison/jail, and perform community service.

[gatordowneast]

Originally Posted by vangator1

What do you do with those that refuse to work? Let them starve?

Van, nobody starves. Every city, town and county in the country has churches, many of which have food banks. Major cities, where most poverty and homelessness issues occur, have programs supported by charities and the cities themselves.

Great article and thanks to vinings for posting.

However, this entire article has zero chance under Obama as it goes against the manifesto and LBJ wing of the demo party who honestly believe that you buy votes by making yourself so important to your constituents that they would never vote for anyone else as they would be cutting their own food, clothing, shelter and health care and free cell phones off. In other words...Creating Dependency, is their plan...why would they change course...they just won the Presidency again with this plan?

[mocgator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I'm certainly open to alternatives to the systems we have now.

No you aren't. And the stinking politicians that use entitlement to buy votes certainly don't.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by gatordowneast

Van, nobody starves. Every city, town and county in the country has churches, many of which have food banks. Major cities, where most poverty and homelessness issues occur, have programs supported by charities and the cities themselves.

Great article and thanks to vinings for posting.

However, this entire article has zero chance under Obama as it goes against the manifesto and LBJ wing of the demo party who honestly believe that you buy votes by making yourself so important to your constituents that they would never vote for anyone else as they would be cutting their own food, clothing, shelter and health care and free cell phones off. In other words...Creating Dependency, is their plan...why would they change course...they just won the Presidency again with this plan?

I was just going to say that poor people in America are far more apt to die of gluttony than starvation.

[chemgator]

Obama thinks he's the fourth-best president in history, after Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ. That should tell you all you need to know about:

a) his over-sized ego and arrogance.

and

b) his demented philosophy on the function of gov't. If he were to be honest about the role of gov't, he would say that "The purpose of gov't is to provide for the people, feed the people, house the people, and clothe the people. The purpose of people is to pay the taxes to feed gov't, if they make too much money." I think that summarizes his "spread the wealth around" philosophy.

I'm not sure which is harder to believe, that we elected a halfwit like GWB to office twice, or that we elected a dimwit like Obama to office twice.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by chemgator

I'm not sure which is harder to believe, that we elected a halfwit like GWB to office twice, or that we elected a dimwit like Obama to office twice.

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice....

[ncbullgator]

Originally Posted by Row6

We've done this before. The War on Poverty resulted in significant changes in levels of poverty and other specific markers. Fine to disagree with methods but don't spread falsehoods about success and supporting data.

I guess the numbers reflecting that 75% of all black babies are born out of wedlock (not to mentioned hispanic and white babies) and the collapse of the black family are your markers for the success of liberal poverty programs.

Or the 15 plus million more on food stamps or the rise, yes increase, in poverty and unemployment since the Obama regime took over are further proof of the success of the liberal ideology.

I guess its the fault of those greedy capitalists and not the fault of selfish liberalism that demands their neighbors pay THEIR bills.

Wow. Clueless.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by ncbullgator

I guess the numbers reflecting that 75% of all black babies are born out of wedlock (not to mentioned hispanic and white babies) and the collapse of the black family are your markers for the success of liberal poverty programs.

Or the 15 plus million more on food stamps or the rise, yes increase, in poverty and unemployment since the Obama regime took over are further proof of the success of the liberal ideology.

I guess its the fault of those greedy capitalists and not the fault of selfish liberalism that demands their neighbors pay THEIR bills.

Wow. Clueless.

Ouch!

But very accurate.

[GatorFanCF]

It's funny (sad) that generally liberals commenting on Gov't programs seem to see life as holding only two alternatives: government assistance or death (by starvation, lack of shelter, pick a need, etc.) Perhaps, just perhaps, if folks knew their neighbors, volunteered locally, participated in a house of worship they just might have friends & relatives willing to help them out. Yes, it's humbling to ask for help; but, help comes in many forms and OFTEN is not found in a check.

Maybe some would argue: "Hey, I like my privacy, don't have time to volunteer outside my work and don't believe in organized religion; so, STFU" Very well; but, the moment you would ask for Gov't assistance you're now asking for MY time (valued in $$) transferred by the State. You don't want to give; but, you're requiring me to do so. Yes, it's a strawman - yet, as we've read in Albert Brooks' book "Who Really Cares?" the folks who give both time & money disproportionately are typically married, attend religious services regularly, are entrepreneurial, and have a healthy cynicism about Govt's ability to solve personal problems. Great thread....kudos to OP.

[vangator1]

What happens when they take away the charitable contribution? Where's all this food coming from?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Well, it is a problem and that's what this thread is about. So whatever other unrelated topics/problems you want to bring in to distract from the thread, just stop before you start.

There is absolutely nothing positive for society that results in allowing people to become dependent on handouts and creates a "subculture of aimless poverty."

My comments were entirely about the "War on Poverty" and - short of action by the mods - I'll decide what I "start". But thanks for the advice.

Au contraire, there were positives that followed from the "war" despite some negatives. Most adults can accept the fact that very few things are perfect in life and without unintended consequences and effective gaming of rules by some, the point I already made above. Indeed the "war" reduced poverty significantly - look at the data - and included programs aimed at self help and education, like Head Start, Vista, and the Job Corps.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by ncbullgator

I guess the numbers reflecting that 75% of all black babies are born out of wedlock (not to mentioned hispanic and white babies) and the collapse of the black family are your markers for the success of liberal poverty programs.

Or the 15 plus million more on food stamps or the rise, yes increase, in poverty and unemployment since the Obama regime took over are further proof of the success of the liberal ideology.

I guess its the fault of those greedy capitalists and not the fault of selfish liberalism that demands their neighbors pay THEIR bills.

Wow. Clueless.

You are apparently clueless about what the "War on Poverty" programs were, the extent to which it was dismantled during the last three decades, the effects it had on poverty levels in America, the larger social changes at work in America since the 1950's, and the fact that we recently the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

That's a little more than I wish to educate you about, but I have offered you a few clues.

[viningsgator]

Originally Posted by vangator1

What happens when they take away the charitable contribution? Where's all this food coming from?

Can't tell if your posts are serious but again this is just beyond silly. Americans are the most generous people in the world and don't give their time and money for a tax deduction. Look at the money that is raised after a tsunami, hurricane, or other natural disaster. Have you ever volunteered? Give it a try its very rewarding.