do we need another 'war on poverty'

[WalterMitty]

discuss.

[MaC]

Well, obviously since the last one worked so well... 

[WalterMitty]

Well, obviously since the last one worked so well... 

the first one wasnt aggressive enough.

[Gabu]

If anyone plans such a thing, I certainly hope they've learned from the past that you don't get someone out of poverty just by giving them money; you have to actually make them self-sufficient.

[MaC]

Well, obviously since the last one worked so well... 

the first one wasnt aggressive enough.

Strength doesn't matter, it was inefficient on principle.

[JSojourner]

If anyone plans such a thing, I certainly hope they've learned from the past that you don't get someone out of poverty just by giving them money; you have to actually make them self-sufficient.

There's an old joke, but it's a good one.  A Democrat and a Republican are taking a walk along the Potomac.  They hear screams and see a man drowning 100 yards from shore.  Being a caring person, the Republican swings into action.  He spies a boathouse nearby and appropriates some rope.  He throws the rope out toward the drowning man.  Unfortunately, he only threw 25 yards worth of rope and the poor man drowned anyway. The Republican felt bad.  But he blamed the dead man for not swimming hard enough.

A week later, the same unlikely pair are out for their walk.  Amazingly, another man is seen drowning in almost the same spot...one hundred yards from shore.  After the previous week's debacle, the Democrat runs to the boathouse and grabs the rope.  He throws it out to the struggling swimmer.  The drowning man grabs the rope...but drowns anyway.  The Democrat threw him a thousand feet of rope...and the poor guy died while trying to pick up the slack.

So -- of course we need another war on poverty.  But it needs to be a new, fresh conversation.  Democrats need to wake up and recognize that government can't (and shouldn't) solve all problems.  Republicans need to come to grips with the reality that churches and social service organizations simply can't (and shouldn't) try to do it all alone. In this new conversation, everyone needs a seat at the table -- not just politicians of both parties.  Business, Industry, Religion, Academia, the Medical and Health Care community and...above all...the poor themselves.  Only when such a conversation is underway can we have a war on poverty that stands a chance of succeeding.

[KEmperor]

Well, obviously since the last one worked so well... 

the first one wasnt aggressive enough.

Indeed.  I say we give poor people 2 months to get out of poverty and then we begin extermination.  Only way to win the war is to kill the enemy.

[MaC]

Well, obviously since the last one worked so well... 

the first one wasnt aggressive enough.

Indeed.  I say we give poor people 2 months to get out of poverty and then we begin extermination.  Only way to win the war is to kill the enemy.

PUNISH THEM WITH RAZORS!!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, although care would have to be taken to avoid making the same sort of mistakes that were made last time.

[opebo]

The previous 'war on poverty', while certainly making life for less harsh for the poor, did nothing to alter the social heirarchy.

It is their relative powerlessness that makes poors poor, and giving them a few crumbs does not change this. 

[Platypus]

direct city-to-city, country-to-country plans work well-for example, put 100% of all British foreign aid into Botswana for five years, get it up to a basic western lebvel in everything, and then move on to another country, with a small amount continuing in Botswana until no longer needed.

Of course, it doesn't change attitudes in the adopted country, but by doing this, with say 30 western nations, in 20 years at least there'd be a framework for progress in every nation on earth.

[opebo]

direct city-to-city, country-to-country plans work well-for example, put 100% of all British foreign aid into Botswana for five years, get it up to a basic western lebvel in everything, and then move on to another country, with a small amount continuing in Botswana until no longer needed.

Of course, it doesn't change attitudes in the adopted country, but by doing this, with say 30 western nations, in 20 years at least there'd be a framework for progress in every nation on earth.

Alas, the 'basic Western level' is quite bad, if you look at the condition of the lower orders of the population in the United States.  In many cases due to lack of choice, corporatization and homogenation of every aspect of life, and the high cost of living, ordinary working people are better off in 'third world' countries than in the US.

But you hint at the real problem with your program in your second paragraph - whether it would change attitudes or not, it most certainly would not change the social heirarchy, which keeps most people in a state of slavery regardless of developement level.

[adam]

I am getting tired of this kind of crap. Whenever we don't like something in this country, we don't do anything about it...we never take effective approaches to solve the problem, we just "declare war" on it. Considering our horrid "battle" record, I would suggest taking the road of "pacifism" and coming up with an idea that works.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Since the war on poverty isn't working, maybe we should - as the Democrats would say - "Re-deploy" the troops

[Beet]

Poverty is IMO something curable in our country many times over with the resources we have, as far as anyone is capable psychologically of overcoming their poverty. People with personality disorders, mental defficiencies, addictions, and the like, may always be poor, but they are a small minority. For the vast majority of people, poverty is quite fixable, as long as our country's overall economic health remains secure. One of the main reasons why Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty didn't succeed was that the country's economy as a whole ran into big trouble in the two decades after it was declared.

The main factor isn't legislation targeted at the poor, it's the economy as a whole and how the economy grows: the first question is, is our economy growing healthily, and is the current growth model sustainable? If the answer is no to either of these questions, any war on poverty will run into trouble. If the first condition is fulfilled, the question then becomes: where does our economic growth come from? What are the factors that drive it? And who benefits the most from it? If the economy is growing in such a way that jobs and broad-based income growth is strong, then poverty will decline by itself as far as the poor are psychologically capable of overcoming it.

With that in mind, I don't think that 'war on poverty' is the right mentality to be going at the problem. For one thing, the poor only represent a small, politically inefficiaous minority, and any political group, organized or not, will have a hard time convincing a middle-class majority to support a poverty-reduction program aimed at a separate minority, especially when that economic minority is often also a racial minority. That's one lesson of the 1970s and 80s. The middle class, however, will support economic policies that benefit both the poor and themselves. This is one reason why Social Security can't be replaced by some form of more targeted eldercare: while it is the poor that benefit disproportionately, in effect, from Social Security, the fact that the middle class benefits also from the program (though they may not need it per se) is critical to the program's success; it keeps Social Security alive politically. Similarly, new programs designed to help the poor must also be designed to help the middle class. And they must be focused around creating opportunity and complementing economic growth.

Rather than a war on poverty specifically, to reduce poverty, political advocates should fight for a comprehensive economic model; comprehensive in two senses: Firstly, that it benefits the country as a whole but that harnesses economic growth in a way such that the poor and middle class benefit proportionately from growth. Secondly, that is based on sound economic growth: the distribution of the pie cannot be separated from the growth of the pie. Such a comprehensive paradigm of economic policy would be more effective and secure than a narrowly targeted package aimed specifically at the poor.

[David S]

Well, obviously since the last one worked so well... 

the first one wasnt aggressive enough.

You should be free to spend as much as you want to correct the problem, as long as you use your own money. You can even use other people's money as long as they give it of their own free will, without government coercion.

[Frodo]

Yes, and it doesn't have to be based on the 'Great Society' model.

[NewFederalist]

Well, obviously since the last one worked so well... 

the first one wasnt aggressive enough.

I think you mean "excessive" enough.

[WalterMitty]

Well, obviously since the last one worked so well... 

the first one wasnt aggressive enough.

I think you mean "excessive" enough.

it didnt get to the roots of the problem.

at the risk of sounding old fashioned, ill say that know fight against poverty will be successful until something is done about the explosion of out of wedlock births in poor communities and drugs.

[Inverted Things]

I am getting tired of this kind of crap. Whenever we don't like something in this country, we don't do anything about it...we never take effective approaches to solve the problem, we just "declare war" on it. Considering our horrid "battle" record, I would suggest taking the road of "pacifism" and coming up with an idea that works.

Well said. War on poverty, war on hunger, war on drugs, war on terrorism, war on homelessness, war on Vietnam.

[dazzleman]

Well, obviously since the last one worked so well... 

the first one wasnt aggressive enough.

I think you mean "excessive" enough.

it didnt get to the roots of the problem.

at the risk of sounding old fashioned, ill say that know fight against poverty will be successful until something is done about the explosion of out of wedlock births in poor communities and drugs.

Amen, Wally.  The last 'war' on poverty significantly increased the percentage of out-of-wedlock births.  It was based on totally the wrong premise.

We have to stop looking at the poor as victims.  We have treated them as victims, and taught them to think of themselves this way.  This conveniently means that they have no responsibility for the results of any of the decisions they have made.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Unrealistic idealism is one of the most destructive forces out there.  While idealism can get people thinking about how to address problems, it takes hard-headed realism to really make a solution work.

That's what was lacking in the last war on poverty.  And BTW, we're still paying for that war on poverty.  We kept on fighting even after the war was lost.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think the key problem here is the belief that this is nothing but expenditure.

The Great Society programs were incredibly important to show the extent of what Government can do.

I don't think the role of government is always to provide everything - in some cases they do and should - but in most cases the way out of poverty is education. Which is why great society creations like head start and federal college loans were so important. But education is one strand.

You institutionalised poverty in many regions - north and south, black and white. And the conservative argument about self-reliance is largely bunk - because kids in these areas are brought up in an environment where they know they are the lowest rung on the ladder and if any of them make it to college they get their own Oprah special.

There needs to be greater effort in several areas - healthcare and housing especially.

Believe you me you kick a person enough they will eventually get the message - they need to be told that they matter just as much.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

What about walling off the ghettoes and putting contraceptives in the food we send into the ghettoes?

[Nym90]

Absolutely (though I'm not so sure about calling it a War...it's not ever truly possible to win a war against a tactic or social condition), though it needs to focus more on empowering people and increasing educational and economic opportunity.