Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[Ravi]

So the moral judgment is that poor people are worthless, do not contribute to society, and will never help anyone themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

So the moral judgment is that poor people are worthless, do not contribute to society, and will never help anyone themselves.

I bet if you tried REALLY hard, Ravi, you would see that nobody has even suggested that poor people are worthless etc. If they were 'worthless', nobody would care about them at all. That's just more of your silly talk isn't it.

 

[JamesMorrison]

Poverty is due to state of mind, more than it is due to outside influences or by government. Poverty cannot be cured by simply giving people money or other things. So it is my opinion that government can only solve problems if it accurately identifies the cause of the problems, and currently I believe the government totally ignores or does not recognize the true causes of poverty. The causes are many, but I think broken homes or single parent homes, unwed mothers, and those types of cultural problems may constitute some of the leading causes of poverty, or at least they are evidence of the factors that cause poverty as well as other cultural problems, such as crime, etc. It is more a spiritual problem as it is an economic problem.

Well you are certainly correct that poverty cannot be cured by government financially subsidizing and fiscally encouraging it (welfare/tax policy) but I respectfully disagree that our “government totally ignores or does not recognize the true causes of poverty”. I submit that there are elements in our government that perpetuate and use poverty to keep themselves in power. The present ruling faction in the Democratic Party has, for years, used demagoguery and misinformation campaigns to keep the poor and minority vote in their corner thereby keeping themselves in power. As has been mentioned, over and over, a good education is a major element in increasing the earning power of individuals. Also common knowledge, is the fact that more and more taxpayer money has been thrown at education over the last 50 years, especially in the inner city areas like Philadelphia, NYC, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles and others, to absolutely no avail. These areas are well known to be Democratic havens, even to the point that incorrigibly corrupt politicians like Charlie Rangel are habitually re-elected time and time again. Yet, we might ask: Where is those politicians’ accountability to those poor citizens when it comes to explaining the chronic inability of the inner city schools to educate those citizens’ children to a mere sub-par level, if that? Simply put, it is to the left’s advantage to keep the poor misinformed and, well, poor and, therefore, dependent upon the left’s, perceived, largess. The left’s strategy has worked so perfectly that the mere mention of government cutbacks brings the age old leftist cry that those that might even hint that entitlements may have to be reduced are labeled the ‘selfish’ and ‘uncaring’ enemy (which of course will be “punished”).
Some here have questioned the validity of your use of the word “spiritual” in defining the poverty problem but, given the left’s recognition and continued use of poverty to further their socialistic efforts to obtain and maintain power, what better term or view to describe the resultant erosion of the spirit of millions of poor Americans, black, white, or Hispanic by maintaining their long term poverty but as a spiritual degradation?

Although government is limited in terms of curing cultural or spiritual problems of the citizenry, it can at least try to reward good citizenship and responsibility, and seek not to reward irresponsibility and bad behavior. This can be done through the welfare system, the tax system, education, and other institutions influenced by the government. It is obvious that poverty cannot be cured overnight, but can be marginally improved or made worse by various government policies.

Yeah, but I’m sure you noted that the more government gets involved the more it feels it should get involved. It’s quite the slippery slope, especially when those in charge feel, not only that they must get involved, but that they are the only ones that can solve everyone’s problems. I am becoming less convinced that the system is correctable and any extension of it in scope or, even, time, only allows the further moral and physical degradation of those involved. Further, use of the system, as I have noted, will only prolong the corrupt influence of the left. Why prolong our collective agony? You yourself have, correctly, pointed out: “Poverty cannot be cured by simply giving people money or other things “

I am tempted here to discuss the long term efforts of the left such as those like Bill Ayers, his wife, and fellow socialist Barack Obama (Yes, he is a socialist, see Stanley Kurtz’s book “Radical in Chief” or view Peter Robinson’s interview (Segments 1 thru 5) here: Uncommon Knowledge: Obama the radical with Stanley Kurtz: Chapter 5 of 5 | Hoover Institution ). But the good news is, essentially, the Tea Party movement that has been holding Republican feet to the fire on smaller government on both regulation and spending. Conservatives can now rightly and truthfully recite Gov Christie’s retort to the big spending left’s name calling of selfish, uncaring, and, of course, racist conservatives: “We just don’t have the money!” Ironically, conservatives have to thank Obama and his leftist buddies Pelosi and Reid and their last two years of legislative efforts for providing us conservatives this opportunity. So perhaps Obama’s presidency will be remembered as “transformative” after all.

An example of what I am talking about is our border security or immigration policy. If we reward law breakers, it will only increase the amount of law breaking in terms of illegal immigration into this country, which has increased poverty, I believe. The state of California is a good example of the economic problems of that state, due to its overburdened educational system, health care system, and prison system for examples. Previous administrations sought to cure the situation nationally with amnesty, but long term it only encouraged more illegals that figured some form of amnesty would again be carried out in the future.

As I pointed out in a previous post Robert Rector refers to this in a section about the U.S. importation of poverty (point # 4 Understanding and Reducing Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation ) The left, again, sees illegal immigrants as an asset. Also, despite federal laws requiring states to purge their voter roles many state agencies under Democratic control have refused to do so, and why not? Who will prosecute them for breaking this law? Certainly not the present Obama DOJ that has refused to even think about prosecuting those of color that have broken federal election laws—and that’s a fact (see the testimony before the FEC of Christopher Coates and J. Christian Adams). This DOJ that is presently suing the state of Arizona for trying to protect its border with Mexico? Again, the leftist charge of racist is applied to those seeking law enforcement. But all this leaves a tremendous reservoir for potential voter fraud.


But unlike the left’s belief that the central government is wise in all and sundry, the beauty of the Founder’s concept of government is in the elegance found in allowing problems to be solved at the most basic and fundamental level possible. While some problems, such as defense, must be addressed at higher levels of organization, poverty is a deeply personal state that exists between an individual and the community that he lives in and that is where that problem should be solved. To wit, let’s start with federal block grants to states to solve this problem. These then statutorily sun downed to a point where the states take control but leave the details to local communities who would better know not only the recipients but their specific problems.

JM

P.S. Welcome to USMB!

 

[Foxfyre]

As I pointed out in a previous post Robert Rector refers to this in a section about the U.S. importation of poverty (point # 4 Understanding and Reducing Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation ) The left, again, sees illegal immigrants as an asset. Also, despite federal laws requiring states to purge their voter roles many state agencies under Democratic control have refused to do so, and why not? Who will prosecute them for breaking this law? Certainly not the present Obama DOJ that has refused to even think about prosecuting those of color that have broken federal election laws—and that’s a fact (see the testimony before the FEC of Christopher Coates and J. Christian Adams). This DOJ that is presently suing the state of Arizona for trying to protect its border with Mexico? Again, the leftist charge of racist is applied to those seeking law enforcement. But all this leaves a tremendous reservoir for potential voter fraud.

Zeroing in on the above paragraph, you touch on a 'morality' issue that I have been hammering away at for months on various threads here at USMB.

I was reading last night a person's conversation with a Cuban refugee who had escaped Castro's Cuba--more fortunate than most because he was allowed one suitcase and $100 to take with him to America. His comments were similar to a Cuban refugee family that I was privileged to help up close and personal years ago.

Both told us: "When Castro took power, we didn't know he was a Communist. We thought he was a Patriot. We looked forward to good things happening."

And it started off gradually at first. The largest Cuban industries were nationalized and a few regulations installed that caused some eyebrows to raise but it was shrugged off as unimportant by most. But as time passed, it happened more and more. And one day they were knocking on the door of the local hardware store and telling the owner that it now belonged to the government and he worked for the government. And they were entering the nice spacious homes of Cuban citizens and telling them that they would have to move into two rooms of their house because more would be moving in with them.

Needless to say, people who experienced such things were more than a ltitle alarmed at our own government taking over General Motors and some of the largest financial institutions.

Well Castro promised and attempted to implement ALL those things our local leftists seem to wish for our own country. And the people of Cuba became less and less free and were made 100% dependent on the grace of government for whatever they were allowed to have. Now After more than 47 years, there is much more poverty in Cuba than ever before. Except for Castro and his gang who are the new millionaires, the 11 million Cubans have to suffer the exploitation of the omnipotent state, rationed food, lack of housing and the indignity of being second class citizens in their own country.

Could it happen in America? Yes, if most Americans decide they trust the government more than private enterprise to create a society they think they want. It could.

Power, prestige, influence, personal wealth invariably becomes the goal for almost all who are in a position to achieve it through government.

 

[Ravi]

As I pointed out in a previous post Robert Rector refers to this in a section about the U.S. importation of poverty (point # 4 Understanding and Reducing Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation ) The left, again, sees illegal immigrants as an asset. Also, despite federal laws requiring states to purge their voter roles many state agencies under Democratic control have refused to do so, and why not? Who will prosecute them for breaking this law? Certainly not the present Obama DOJ that has refused to even think about prosecuting those of color that have broken federal election laws—and that’s a fact (see the testimony before the FEC of Christopher Coates and J. Christian Adams). This DOJ that is presently suing the state of Arizona for trying to protect its border with Mexico? Again, the leftist charge of racist is applied to those seeking law enforcement. But all this leaves a tremendous reservoir for potential voter fraud.

Zeroing in on the above paragraph, you touch on a 'morality' issue that I have been hammering away at for months on various threads here at USMB.

I was reading last night a person's conversation with a Cuban refugee who had escaped Castro's Cuba--more fortunate than most because he was allowed one suitcase and $100 to take with him to America. His comments were similar to a Cuban refugee family that I was privileged to help up close and personal years ago.

Both told us: "When Castro took power, we didn't know he was a Communist. We thought he was a Patriot. We looked forward to good things happening."

And it started off gradually at first. The largest Cuban industries were nationalized and a few regulations installed that caused some eyebrows to raise but it was shrugged off as unimportant by most. But as time passed, it happened more and more. And one day they were knocking on the door of the local hardware store and telling the owner that it now belonged to the government and he worked for the government. And they were entering the nice spacious homes of Cuban citizens and telling them that they would have to move into two rooms of their house because more would be moving in with them.

Needless to say, people who experienced such things were more than a ltitle alarmed at our own government taking over General Motors and some of the largest financial institutions.

Well Castro promised and attempted to implement ALL those things our local leftists seem to wish for our own country. And the people of Cuba became less and less free and were made 100% dependent on the grace of government for whatever they were allowed to have. Now After more than 47 years, there is much more poverty in Cuba than ever before. Except for Castro and his gang who are the new millionaires, the 11 million Cubans have to suffer the exploitation of the omnipotent state, rationed food, lack of housing and the indignity of being second class citizens in their own country.

Could it happen in America? Yes, if most Americans decide they trust the government more than private enterprise to create a society they think they want. It could.

Power, prestige, influence, personal wealth invariably becomes the goal for almost all who are in a position to achieve it through government.

Negged for lying. Most of your posts are lies ,half truths, and hysteria but this is way up there so it deserves neg.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I pointed out in a previous post Robert Rector refers to this in a section about the U.S. importation of poverty (point # 4 Understanding and Reducing Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation ) The left, again, sees illegal immigrants as an asset. Also, despite federal laws requiring states to purge their voter roles many state agencies under Democratic control have refused to do so, and why not? Who will prosecute them for breaking this law? Certainly not the present Obama DOJ that has refused to even think about prosecuting those of color that have broken federal election laws—and that’s a fact (see the testimony before the FEC of Christopher Coates and J. Christian Adams). This DOJ that is presently suing the state of Arizona for trying to protect its border with Mexico? Again, the leftist charge of racist is applied to those seeking law enforcement. But all this leaves a tremendous reservoir for potential voter fraud.

Zeroing in on the above paragraph, you touch on a 'morality' issue that I have been hammering away at for months on various threads here at USMB.

I was reading last night a person's conversation with a Cuban refugee who had escaped Castro's Cuba--more fortunate than most because he was allowed one suitcase and $100 to take with him to America. His comments were similar to a Cuban refugee family that I was privileged to help up close and personal years ago.

Both told us: "When Castro took power, we didn't know he was a Communist. We thought he was a Patriot. We looked forward to good things happening."

And it started off gradually at first. The largest Cuban industries were nationalized and a few regulations installed that caused some eyebrows to raise but it was shrugged off as unimportant by most. But as time passed, it happened more and more. And one day they were knocking on the door of the local hardware store and telling the owner that it now belonged to the government and he worked for the government. And they were entering the nice spacious homes of Cuban citizens and telling them that they would have to move into two rooms of their house because more would be moving in with them.

Needless to say, people who experienced such things were more than a ltitle alarmed at our own government taking over General Motors and some of the largest financial institutions.

Well Castro promised and attempted to implement ALL those things our local leftists seem to wish for our own country. And the people of Cuba became less and less free and were made 100% dependent on the grace of government for whatever they were allowed to have. Now After more than 47 years, there is much more poverty in Cuba than ever before. Except for Castro and his gang who are the new millionaires, the 11 million Cubans have to suffer the exploitation of the omnipotent state, rationed food, lack of housing and the indignity of being second class citizens in their own country.

Could it happen in America? Yes, if most Americans decide they trust the government more than private enterprise to create a society they think they want. It could.

Power, prestige, influence, personal wealth invariably becomes the goal for almost all who are in a position to achieve it through government.

Negged for lying. Most of your posts are lies ,half truths, and hysteria but this is way up there so it deserves neg.

Well I'm sorry you see it as lying, Ravi. I am taking it right out of the history book. Castro, to win the hearts of the people, promised them freedom, justice, plenty of food, free healthcare, opportunity, and reparations for past wrongs. Is that not what you folks on the Left have been wanting for Americans? How does that merit an accusation of 'lying'?

He certainly didn't sell himself as a Communist at the beginning. Not to his people. Not to the U.S. who backed him in the overthrow of Batista. It was one of those cases that we helped throw out the devil we knew and replaced him with a worse one.

Thanks for the neg rep. Very charitable of you.

 

[JamesMorrison]

As I pointed out in a previous post Robert Rector refers to this in a section about the U.S. importation of poverty (point # 4 Understanding and Reducing Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation ) The left, again, sees illegal immigrants as an asset. Also, despite federal laws requiring states to purge their voter roles many state agencies under Democratic control have refused to do so, and why not? Who will prosecute them for breaking this law? Certainly not the present Obama DOJ that has refused to even think about prosecuting those of color that have broken federal election laws—and that’s a fact (see the testimony before the FEC of Christopher Coates and J. Christian Adams). This DOJ that is presently suing the state of Arizona for trying to protect its border with Mexico? Again, the leftist charge of racist is applied to those seeking law enforcement. But all this leaves a tremendous reservoir for potential voter fraud.

Zeroing in on the above paragraph, you touch on a 'morality' issue that I have been hammering away at for months on various threads here at USMB.

I was reading last night a person's conversation with a Cuban refugee who had escaped Castro's Cuba--more fortunate than most because he was allowed one suitcase and $100 to take with him to America. His comments were similar to a Cuban refugee family that I was privileged to help up close and personal years ago.

Both told us: "When Castro took power, we didn't know he was a Communist. We thought he was a Patriot. We looked forward to good things happening."

And it started off gradually at first. The largest Cuban industries were nationalized and a few regulations installed that caused some eyebrows to raise but it was shrugged off as unimportant by most. But as time passed, it happened more and more. And one day they were knocking on the door of the local hardware store and telling the owner that it now belonged to the government and he worked for the government. And they were entering the nice spacious homes of Cuban citizens and telling them that they would have to move into two rooms of their house because more would be moving in with them.

Needless to say, people who experienced such things were more than a ltitle alarmed at our own government taking over General Motors and some of the largest financial institutions.

Well Castro promised and attempted to implement ALL those things our local leftists seem to wish for our own country. And the people of Cuba became less and less free and were made 100% dependent on the grace of government for whatever they were allowed to have. Now After more than 47 years, there is much more poverty in Cuba than ever before. Except for Castro and his gang who are the new millionaires, the 11 million Cubans have to suffer the exploitation of the omnipotent state, rationed food, lack of housing and the indignity of being second class citizens in their own country.

Could it happen in America? Yes, if most Americans decide they trust the government more than private enterprise to create a society they think they want. It could.

Power, prestige, influence, personal wealth invariably becomes the goal for almost all who are in a position to achieve it through government.

Your point is well taken but remember the Cuban revolutionaries still had the guns after they defeated Batista. Is this why the left is so adamant about disarming all Americans other than the police? The end point of communism has historically been reached by the left's efforts in the former U.S.S.R. but that has not been (and probably never will be) the end of the left's efforts to control vast numbers of the earth's population. Ironically that great promoter of communism, Vlad (The Jailor) Putin, has used democracy to become, essentially, a Fascist similar to Hitler (another member of the left)! Ahh, remember the good ole days when tyrants were brutally honest in their efforts and didn't hide behind political labels? But the left has learned much. Honestly they have become too smart by half. We now have progressives that are, like Mr. Obama, 'Realistic', 'Pragmatic', and, now, Re the law, 'Empathetic' (USSC Justice Sotomayer). Too smart because, to those alert enough, we have now had two years for them to demonstrate exactly what they want our country to become and exactly how serious they are about obtaining their goals.

Their was a time, shortly before the beginning of, and 2 decades into, the 20th century, where they (progressives here) were at least honest about their goals. Listen to what Herbert Croly, founder of the New Republic, had to say about his progressive efforts in 1914:

"The American democracy can, consequently, safely trust its genuine interests to the keeping of those who represent the national interest. It both can do so, and it must do so. Only by faith in an efficient national organization, and by an exclusive and aggressive devotion to the national welfare, can the American democratic ideal be made good."

But who would be the keepers of the American interests? Well, essentially, a central government of course, but to what degree? Croly seems to admit to almost any degree but his answer is telling:

To be sure, any increase in centralized power and responsibility, expedient or inexpedient, is injurious to certain aspects of traditional American democracy. But the fault in that case lies with the democratic tradition; and the erroneous and misleading tradition must yield before the march of a constructive national democracy. The national advance will always be impeded by these misleading and erroneous ideas, and, what is more, it always should be impeded by them, because at bottom ideas of this kind are merely an expression of the fact that the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat. An American national democracy must always prove its right to a further advance, not only by the development of a policy and method adequate for the particular occasion, but by its ability to overcome the inevitable opposition of selfish interests and erroneous ideas

( Obama and the State of Progressivism, 2011 | Hoover Institution )

As Berkowitz points out you probably would not hear that highlighted in italics repeated today by any serious progressive candidate for public office today, but we find this attitude absolutely rampant on the NYT, blogs and, presently even this particular thread. Further, the elitism promoted with the leftist mindset is unbounded, not to mention, as Croly does, that the founders were simply wrong. But as Berkowtiz points out (and Croly actually admits to):

The paradox of American progressivism, old and new, is rooted in the gap between its professed devotion to democracy, or the idea that the people legitimately rule, and its belief that democracy consists in a set of policies independent of what the people want.

But to progressives this paradox is broken by the fact that they, fortunately, have all the answers whether regarding Cops acting "stupidly" or racist neighbors of potential Mosques or the reformation of (or is it the central government increasing control over) icky financial markets. You see (thru progressive eyes) the 'real' liberty or democracy that will set us free cannot be obtained thru imperfect individualism no, no, that must be mediated by a central government filled with the progressive elite to show us individual Americans, who cling to this or that, the way to a higher form of liberty unobtainable to the unwashed. This, of course, will surely necessitate "sharing" of the wealth of Americans who actually produce something or supply a valued service.

Sorry, but I gotta go. I would reserve the right to further comment on your post.

JM

 

[Foxfyre]

Your point is well taken but remember the Cuban revolutionaries still had the guns after they defeated Batista. Is this why the left is so adamant about disarming all Americans other than the police? The end point of communism has historically been reached by the left's efforts in the former U.S.S.R. but that has not been (and probably never will be) the end of the left's efforts to control vast numbers of the earth's population. Ironically that great promoter of communism, Vlad (The Jailor) Putin, has used democracy to become, essentially, a Fascist similar to Hitler (another member of the left)! Ahh, remember the good ole days when tyrants were brutally honest in their efforts and didn't hide behind political labels? But the left has learned much. Honestly they have become too smart by half. We now have progressives that are, like Mr. Obama, 'Realistic', 'Pragmatic', and, now, Re the law, 'Empathetic' (USSC Justice Sotomayer). Too smart because, to those alert enough, we have now had two years for them to demonstrate exactly what they want our country to become and exactly how serious they are about obtaining their goals.

Their was a time, shortly before the beginning of, and 2 decades into, the 20th century, where they (progressives here) were at least honest about their goals. Listen to what Herbert Croly, founder of the New Republic, had to say about his progressive efforts in 1914:

But who would be the keepers of the American interests? Well, essentially, a central government of course, but to what degree? Croly seems to admit to almost any degree but his answer is telling:

To be sure, any increase in centralized power and responsibility, expedient or inexpedient, is injurious to certain aspects of traditional American democracy. But the fault in that case lies with the democratic tradition; and the erroneous and misleading tradition must yield before the march of a constructive national democracy. The national advance will always be impeded by these misleading and erroneous ideas, and, what is more, it always should be impeded by them, because at bottom ideas of this kind are merely an expression of the fact that the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat. An American national democracy must always prove its right to a further advance, not only by the development of a policy and method adequate for the particular occasion, but by its ability to overcome the inevitable opposition of selfish interests and erroneous ideas

( Obama and the State of Progressivism, 2011 | Hoover Institution )

As Berkowitz points out you probably would not hear that highlighted in italics repeated today by any serious progressive candidate for public office today, but we find this attitude absolutely rampant on the NYT, blogs and, presently even this particular thread. Further, the elitism promoted with the leftist mindset is unbounded, not to mention, as Croly does, that the founders were simply wrong. But as Berkowtiz points out (and Croly actually admits to):

The paradox of American progressivism, old and new, is rooted in the gap between its professed devotion to democracy, or the idea that the people legitimately rule, and its belief that democracy consists in a set of policies independent of what the people want.

But to progressives this paradox is broken by the fact that they, fortunately, have all the answers whether regarding Cops acting "stupidly" or racist neighbors of potential Mosques or the reformation of (or is it the central government increasing control over) icky financial markets. You see (thru progressive eyes) the 'real' liberty or democracy that will set us free cannot be obtained thru imperfect individualism no, no, that must be mediated by a central government filled with the progressive elite to show us individual Americans, who cling to this or that, the way to a higher form of liberty unobtainable to the unwashed. This, of course, will surely necessitate "sharing" of the wealth of Americans who actually produce something or supply a valued service.

Sorry, but I gotta go. I would reserve the right to further comment on your post.

JM

Didn't Castro take the guns after he achieved power though? I didn't go look that up, but I think that was the case.

While I am ideologically opposed to modern liberalism, as you know, I do know a number of liberals who are every bit as patriotic and who love their country as much as the staunchest of conservatives. But the cornerstone of modern American liberalism is a strong central government with the power to require the people to create the society the liberal believes we should have. That would be a society that champions the poor and oppressed and provides their basic needs, that cuts the big cheeses down to size, and that produces a visionary utopia in which all can feel righteous.

The Conservative sees the same goals being achieved through individual liberty, respect for unalienable rights, personal integrity, accountability, responsibility, and right choices, and allowing people to learn by suffering consequences for the poor choices they make. And respecting and protecting unalienable rights of the people offset the more unattractive and less productive aspects of individualism and capitalism.

We, the Conservatives, believe history comes down on our side and see liberalism/socialism/big government power as having failed wherever it has been tried. I think many of the liberals haven't looked with objective eyes at that same history and they either have blocked out the negatives or think if we could just get it right we could make it work even as many others have failed.

Meanwhile the poor hang in the balance. Will they be led or driven out of poverty as Benjamin Franklin believed was the compassionate policy? Or will they continue as wards of the government and dependent on its generosity?

 

[The Joe]

All that does is address the symptoms, rather than the root cause.

The root cause is philosophical, not that I harbor any illusion that you can comprehend this.

So someone with no basic education, trying to raise 3 kids alone and working two jobs should give up her refrigerator and her mode of transportation to and from those jobs because she hasn't "earned" it? Gotcha. I'm sure such a mother sits around wringing her hands that she should take a more "philosophical" approach to life.

Seriously, you don't know what you are talking about. I dropped out of high school and have two kids and a wife and no future plans to force the government to steal from me so I can support you. After all, as a business owner, I know that would take money away from me expanding and hiring more EMPLOYEES. Calling them workers would be an insult considering I want people who aren't so lazy they pay somebody to negotiate their own slave wages. If you don't like where you are at, stop blaming others and work harder. If you can't do that, you don't deserve the responsibility to live in America.

 

[Foxfyre]

The question was raised earlier re why would a woman have three kids to support by herself? Of course there are divorces and deaths that create single parenthood, but don't responsible people arrange for child support or life insurance?

The rare anecdotal example is rarely constructive in establishing national policy that promotes the general welfare.

Going back to the earlier notations that the large lion's share of children living in poverty are kids of single parents, the way I look at it, promoting the general welfare would include promoting more of the traditional two parent family and a whole lot fewer single parents.

 

[JamesMorrison]

Didn't Castro take the guns after he achieved power though? I didn't go look that up, but I think that was the case.

Sure but not from those he needed to carry on the "revolution". Up until the Obama regime, a 'realistic' progressive was one that accepted the reality that America was a center-right country and that progressive efforts at legislation that worked towards their goals was best accomplished by a step by step or gradual approach. Such are their efforts to remove guns from the hands of ordinary citizens so that, hopefully by the time those citizens realize they are about to lose their personal liberties any citizen organizations attempting to object would have to do so unarmed while the police would be well armed. Even if one accepts the left’s explanation that only the cops need guns (I don’t, after all, if nobody has guns why would the cops need them? Unless, of course, the cops need guns to protect us from those criminals that have guns but, if only the cops and criminals have guns then why can’t citizens…), the end result is the same. This might seem a little farfetched but then I'll bet that the founders would not have believed that the federal government would be involved in abortions, let alone funding them.

A side note here: I just heard on the news the other day that the Cuban communists will now be allowing individuals to start and run their own businesses. This comes about since they recently could not pay for and had to fire tens of thousands from government jobs. The communists also have discovered that they might now create a new revenue stream for the Castro government by taxing the income from those small businesses. Hmmm…sounds vaguely familiar. I take this as further proof of my assertion that both socialism and communism cannot exist outside the greater context of a supporting capitalism.

While I am ideologically opposed to modern liberalism, as you know, I do know a number of liberals who are every bit as patriotic and who love their country as much as the staunchest of conservatives. But the cornerstone of modern American liberalism is a strong central government with the power to require the people to create the society the liberal believes we should have. That would be a society that champions the poor and oppressed and provides their basic needs, that cuts the big cheeses down to size, and that produces a visionary utopia in which all can feel righteous.

The Conservative sees the same goals being achieved through individual liberty, respect for unalienable rights, personal integrity, accountability, responsibility, and right choices, and allowing people to learn by suffering consequences for the poor choices they make. And respecting and protecting unalienable rights of the people offset the more unattractive and less productive aspects of individualism and capitalism

We, the Conservatives, believe history comes down on our side and see liberalism/socialism/big government power as having failed wherever it has been tried. I think many of the liberals haven't looked with objective eyes at that same history and they either have blocked out the negatives or think if we could just get it right we could make it work even as many others have failed.

Your last paragraph above dovetails nicely with my last sentence above but what is happening out in Wisconsin shows, not only the end result of the left's efforts but the very shameful tactics, actions, and hateful rhetoric the left uses. See here ( Democrat Legislators Go On Strike in Wisconsin, Phone in Demands to CNN | RedState ) and here ( Unions fuel the hate in Wisconsin. | RedState ) and now the White House shows its true anti-states rights colors by meddling in state business( As Wisconsin Implodes, White House Plans Meeting With AFL-CIO War Council | RedState ). Simply put ,if the left, represented by Obama, is hell bent on politizing the financial troubles of states I can't see how we can take them seriously when it comes to addressing the poverty and education problems in the U.S.

Well, you know the problems with this belief [big government knows best] and they are summed up by Madison's quip regarding Angels, men, and self government (Federalist 51 I believe). It also demonstrates the paradox of progressivism where progressives supposedly believe in the self governing principle but only after those individuals, so governed, are wise enough to see that what they really want is, well, what the ruling elite say they want. Reading Croly’s quote above one cannot help but note that individuals’ thoughts and efforts towards their ‘Happiness’ is only accepted by the elite after those individuals fulfill their “responsibilities as a democrat”. But who interprets and approves those actions that so fulfill? Well, the progressive elite, of course, who are, essentially, the collective’s masters. This is in direct conflict of the founder’s (and our) seeing responsibility localized in the individual. Madison and the founders trusted individuals and the organizations and/or factions that might naturally spring forth, in conjunction with competing factions, to arrive at solutions that would be correct for that level of society in question. More importantly, those solutions would display a justice informed by all parties by way of equality of input.

Cap and Trade proves my point that the left needs all these nanny rationales simply to gain power by gaining wealth from others via their legal plunder. I have continually searched and (on various threads, asked for) a progressive explanation of exactly How increasing energy costs for the entire population of planet earth would benefit all. A credible cost/benefit analysis that argues for Cap and Trade in America simply does not exist since any serious analysis would have to include the unwillingness of China and India to participate thereby negating any localized efforts of California or, even the Continental U.S. To date, other than statements to the effect that: “We must start somewhere” or “Somebody has to do something” I have not received a rational satisfactory answer why Californians, let alone Americans, should realistically expect a positive overall affect generated by Cap and Trade. Indeed, as time proceeds less and less people are satisfied that “the debate is over” or that “The science is settled”.

So I have come to the conclusion that there are only two reasons why the Cap and Trade effort still prevails. The two answers that make sense are rather dark: 1) The left just wants the tax/fine revenues to increase their power (note the latest budget put forth by President Obama contained increased fuel taxes). 2) The environmental left wants to decrease carbon output to the point where human existence is discouraged (witness: every mammal on earth, according to the new EPA findings produces pollutants that poison the earth's atmosphere when they exhale each and every breath but only human activity is singled out for action.). Perhaps both are true.

Meanwhile the poor hang in the balance. Will they be led or driven out of poverty as Benjamin Franklin believed was the compassionate policy? Or will they continue as wards of the government and dependent on its generosity?

I see elegance in the founders’ solution to self govern. At the highest levels, where central actions are most potent and far reaching, the Constitution allows for a select few actions that fulfill the legitimate functions of a central government.
The statist left will always be with us. They will always have an excuse as to why their programs don’t work. Those excuses will never contain hard facts or academic studies backed up by mathematics and rigorous logical argument.

But their belief is flawed by a willing ignorance. That ignorance is supported by the absolute refusal to take into account human nature and past behavior as predictive. In fact that totally predictive behavior, that should inform their efforts, is merely subjectively labled as an individual moral deficiency (selfish, greedy, etc). They then set themselves up for disappointment time and time again. This is the same human nature that the founders used to allow and encourage different factions and, even, human pride and protection of bureaucratic turf that would be used as a check against the accumulation and misuse of governmental power. Instead the left assumes, essentially, that individuals are simply unable, yet, to govern themselves. This is, operationally, no different then past monarchies or autocracies. To the left, the common man will never be ready. So they pass ‘helpful’ laws which generate unintended side effects which then must be dealt with by passing new laws which generate more problems so that more laws are needed etc.

But the Democratic Party has simply reached a point where its very existence depends upon large government and the revenues that it generates and can be diverted into their campaign coffers and they know this only to well (see the last link above). Progressives have constructed a house of cards that, now, some governors and legislators have begun to remove the bottom cards of. Why? Well the public has started to pay attention to “that [politician] behind the curtain” and they despise what he is doing. Other than as a foil to conservative insistence on individual liberties and economic freedom the left cares not a wit about the poor.

JM

P.S. Just saw Gov Christie on an AEI video. He says education reform will be the next battle in this state. It should be both interesting and enlightening. A better educated public is a good thing that will be the only thing that might force the lefties in the press to the political margins or to become more centrist; a move helped by the internet (no wonder Obama’s FCC wants to control it!). But given our observations above, the left will have to be dragged kicking, screaming, and demagoging all the way into a more conservative and realistic future; it should be great fun!

P.P.S. To all: Have a nice holiday weekend!

 

[JamesMorrison]

The question was raised earlier re why would a woman have three kids to support by herself? Of course there are divorces and deaths that create single parenthood, but don't responsible people arrange for child support or life insurance?

The rare anecdotal example is rarely constructive in establishing national policy that promotes the general welfare.

Going back to the earlier notations that the large lion's share of children living in poverty are kids of single parents, the way I look at it, promoting the general welfare would include promoting more of the traditional two parent family and a whole lot fewer single parents.

In keeping with conservative values central government has absolutley no role here and obviously has actively contributed to the problem. Further, the central government has added to the financial woes of many of the states by mandating greater spending on state welfare. You may rember the last governor of South Carolina was excoriated for refusing federal 'stimulus' dollars because that money came with a federal mandate to increase the number of people on the state's welfare roles.

If we accept Rector's conclusions about what causes poverty, than we can easily say that the federal government has increased poverty. It is not the Constitutional responsibility of our central government to address poverty or, for that matter, education. It is a sign of how far left this country has moved in the last 100 years that many Americans cannot envision a central government without a DOE or a War on Poverty etc. The federal government's responsibility can be boiled down to three things: lubricating commerce, insuring we don't kill each other or steal each other's stuff and making sure other nations don't do so either.

JM

 

[Foxfyre]

I ran across this old video clip of Phil Donahue interviewing Milton Friedman thirty years ago.

It was so pertinent to the subject of this thread, I hope everyone will look at it. It is only about two minutes long:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A[/ame]

The money phrase in the clip:

"Is political self interest somehow more noble than economic self interest?"

 

[Tea Bag Partier]

With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart:

President Johnson announced his landmark "War on Poverty" at the State of the Union Address in January, 1964.

President Obama will probably mention something akin to poverty at his State of the Union Address 47 years later in January, 2011.

So what do the numbers tell you?

Government is necessary to deal with poverty?

Government does a good job in addressing poverty?

Government makes little or no difference in reducing poverty and could have saved a shipload of the people's money--make that mega trillions--if it had not initiated a 'war on poverty'?

Government actually contributes to poverty?

Or something in between?

Or none of the above?

In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.

It's hilarious that you posted a chart showing the "number" of people in poverty from 1950 to 2005. This would get graded "F minus" in any elementary statistics class.

Are you aware that the population of the United States is almost twice as large now, as in 1950? Are you aware that means your chart is poppycock?

What your chart is therefore showing is that the poverty rate has been drastically reduced since 1950. Well done!

 

[Foxfyre]

With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart:

President Johnson announced his landmark "War on Poverty" at the State of the Union Address in January, 1964.

President Obama will probably mention something akin to poverty at his State of the Union Address 47 years later in January, 2011.

So what do the numbers tell you?

Government is necessary to deal with poverty?

Government does a good job in addressing poverty?

Government makes little or no difference in reducing poverty and could have saved a shipload of the people's money--make that mega trillions--if it had not initiated a 'war on poverty'?

Government actually contributes to poverty?

Or something in between?

Or none of the above?

In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.

It's hilarious that you posted a chart showing the "number" of people in poverty from 1950 to 2005. This would get graded "F minus" in any elementary statistics class.

Are you aware that the population of the United States is almost twice as large now, as in 1950? Are you aware that means your chart is poppycock?

What your chart is therefore showing is that the poverty rate has been drastically reduced since 1950. Well done!

Perhaps you might read the OP before giving it a grade and, unless you are terribly challenged in the IQ department, you might understand that the population of the United States was not a factor though it is necessary to consider the numbers in order to consider the rate.

No conclusion or statement regarding the graphic was presented in the OP but only a series of questions of what conclusion one might draw from it considering government efforts to reduce poverty beginning with President Johnson's landmark initiative.

Then you might actually join in the discussion by considering those questions.

And your apology for being a jerk in your post would be appropriate at this point.

 

[Samson]

With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart:

President Johnson announced his landmark "War on Poverty" at the State of the Union Address in January, 1964.

President Obama will probably mention something akin to poverty at his State of the Union Address 47 years later in January, 2011.

So what do the numbers tell you?

Government is necessary to deal with poverty?

Government does a good job in addressing poverty?

Government makes little or no difference in reducing poverty and could have saved a shipload of the people's money--make that mega trillions--if it had not initiated a 'war on poverty'?

Government actually contributes to poverty?

Or something in between?

Or none of the above?

In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.

It's hilarious that you posted a chart showing the "number" of people in poverty from 1950 to 2005. This would get graded "F minus" in any elementary statistics class.

Are you aware that the population of the United States is almost twice as large now, as in 1950? Are you aware that means your chart is poppycock?

What your chart is therefore showing is that the poverty rate has been drastically reduced since 1950. Well done!

Perhaps you might read the OP before giving it a grade and, unless you are terribly challenged in the IQ department, you might understand that the population of the United States was not a factor though it is necessary to consider the numbers in order to consider the rate.

No conclusion or statement regarding the graphic was presented in the OP but only a series of questions of what conclusion one might draw from it considering government efforts to reduce poverty beginning with President Johnson's landmark initiative.

Then you might actually join in the discussion by considering those questions.

And your apology for being a jerk in your post would be appropriate at this point.

TBP is an obvious plant, purposefully misrepresenting the Tea Party. A Troll. I suggest using the ignore function.

The chart shows that while the total number living in poverty hasn't changed much since 1960, the proportion has been reduced from 25% to 12.6%.

 

[JamesMorrison]

I ran across this old video clip of Phil Donahue interviewing Milton Friedman thirty years ago.

It was so pertinent to the subject of this thread, I hope everyone will look at it. It is only about two minutes long:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

The money phrase in the clip:

"Is political self interest somehow more noble than economic self interest?"

Yes the Friedman clarity, hard to argue against honestly. I saw an interview with him and his wife, no free market slouch herself, a number of years ago. They discussed economics and their relationship. Heartwarming. I bet you haven't heard that word in conjunction with interviews with economists very often! But here is another video. It is a 25 minute video where Peter Robinson interviews Friedman at the Hoover Institute about libertarianism in 1999. Uncommon Knowledge: TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism | Hoover Institution

Also, you know how the left likes to denigrate conservatives with their two-bit moral judgments like 'greedy' and 'selfish'?

Ayn Rand ( Ayn Rand and Objectivism Texts ) has an excellent essay that has innoculated me and, I feel, all serious conservatives from such charges. It is entitled 'The Virtue of Selfishness" and found here: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/texts/text 1/rand.html

Rand's condemnation of moral judgments suggests that Friedman may have been influenced by her thoughts.

"Observe the indecency of what passes for moral judgments today. An industrialist who produces a fortune, and a gangster who robs a bank are regarded as equally immoral, since they both sought wealth for their own "selfish" benefit. A young man who gives up his career in order to support his parents and never rises beyond the rank of grocery clerk is regarded as morally superior to the young man who endures an excruciating struggle and achieves his personal ambition. A dictator is regarded as moral, since the unspeakable atrocities he committed were intended to benefit "the people," not himself."

In re-reading that essay I came to think of something that has always puzzled me, political correctness. Rand is rightly suspicious of 'altruistic' motives. I am sure that she would be equally appalled at PC. What is PC if not a generally agreed upon moral judgment which now can be used to label non-followers evil. The next step for non-followers is marginalization and elimination. We have seen this perversion of altruism (i.e. PC) used via the racism charge and, more recently, the Ground Zero Mosque. The moral short circuit (like that of false altruism's) that PC provides prevents us from honestly addressing equality in racial questions. Therefore anyone seriously addressing the intercity black child's paucity of education is open to charges of racism or 'uncaring' (when they bring up the fact that more money has not improved educational quality of these children ). In the case of radical Islam this PC generated short circuit has proved to be downright existential. CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and other groups have been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood but, like pre-massacre Major Hassan’s behavior, these signs are continually ignored at our peril.

JM

 

[American_Jihad]

The Government’s War on Poverty Reduction

December 11, 2013 by Arnold Ahlert

While President Obama is pushing his redistributionist war on “income inequality,” the American left is excited about a new study, “Trends in Poverty with an Anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure” that purports to show that government welfare programs have significantly eased the burden faced by poor Americans in the nearly 50 years since Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty was launched. According to the research, the so-called safety net was instrumental in reducing the percentage of poor Americans from 26 percent in 1967, to 16 percent in 2012. Yet even in the midst of the euphoria, the Washington Post reveals that the study’s findings “contradict the official poverty rate, which suggests there has been no decline in the percentage of Americans experiencing poverty since then.” In other words, the statistics have been manipulated to reach the desired result.

While that conclusion may rankle leftists, it is political blogger Kevin Drum writing for the left-leaning Mother Jones who explains why it is true. In an article with an equally rankling title, “New Study Says Poverty Rate Hasn’t Budged For 40 Years,” Drum notes that statistical analyses must be done with care. “If it’s test scores among school kids, you need to disaggregate by race and ethnic background,” he writes. ”If it’s life expectancy and Social Security, you need to make sure to use life expectancy at age 65, not life expectancy at birth. And if it’s poverty measurements, you need to distinguish between elderly poverty and working-age poverty.”

...

The Government?s War on Poverty Reduction | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow AJ, this is a blast from the past--I had forgotten all about this thread.

But the article you posted brings it right up to this point in time doesn't it?

I thought the following from your linked article to be especially pertinent re the OP too:

. . . .the Cato Institute’s Daniel J. Mitchell bases his findings on figures released by the Census Bureau. Those figures paint a damning picture of leftist re-distribution schemes, revealing that the largest decrease in the percentage of poor Americans occurred before LBJ’s War on Poverty began. From 1950 to the late 1960s, Census Bureau data show the poverty rate in a dramatic decline. Immediately after LBJ’s “Great Society” programs kicked into gear, the poverty rate began to stagnate. And it has more or less stagnated ever since, despite trillions of dollars of government spending on means-tested programs. Mitchell concludes there could be alternative explanations for such stagnation, but he wonders aloud whether “government intervention may be encouraging poverty by making indolence more attractive than work.”

A 2013 study published by the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes provides some daunting insight. “The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work,” Tanner and Hughes write. “Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.”

 

[Bfgrn]

Wow AJ, this is a blast from the past--I had forgotten all about this thread.

But the article you posted brings it right up to this point in time doesn't it?

I thought the following from your linked article to be especially pertinent re the OP too:

. . . .the Cato Institute’s Daniel J. Mitchell bases his findings on figures released by the Census Bureau. Those figures paint a damning picture of leftist re-distribution schemes, revealing that the largest decrease in the percentage of poor Americans occurred before LBJ’s War on Poverty began. From 1950 to the late 1960s, Census Bureau data show the poverty rate in a dramatic decline. Immediately after LBJ’s “Great Society” programs kicked into gear, the poverty rate began to stagnate. And it has more or less stagnated ever since, despite trillions of dollars of government spending on means-tested programs. Mitchell concludes there could be alternative explanations for such stagnation, but he wonders aloud whether “government intervention may be encouraging poverty by making indolence more attractive than work.”

A 2013 study published by the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes provides some daunting insight. “The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work,” Tanner and Hughes write. “Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.”

"The simplest description of the War on Poverty is that it is a means of making life available for any and all pursuers. It does not try to make men good -- because that is moralizing. It does not try to give men what they want -- because that is catering. It does not try to give men false hopes -- because that is deception. Instead, the War on Poverty tries only to create the conditions by which the good life can be lived -- and that is humanism."
Robert Sargent "Sarge" Shriver, Jr.

FALSE-there was no reliable data until the mid 60's. Old, young and ethnic groups were not even calculated.

Remembering Mollie Orshansky;The Developer of the Poverty Thresholds

In 1963, Mollie was assigned to do an in-house research project on "Poverty as it Affects Children." At that time (the year before the War on Poverty was declared) there was no generally accepted measure of poverty, so to do the project she developed her own poverty measure, using the same approach that she had used for her 1960 answer-for-the-record.

Mollie completed her analysis extending the thresholds to the whole population by late 1964, and it was published in the Social Security Bulletin in January 1965 as "Counting the Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile." The publication of Orshansky's January 1965 article came at the time when the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO)—the lead agency for the War on Poverty—was being set up. OEO officials were enthusiastic about Orshansky's poverty thresholds, describing them as early as March 1965 as a "second generation definition of poverty."