Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[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.”

"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."

I'm not sure that Lingus created that graph from actual U.S. Census data because I am pretty sure that if the government was tracing poverty rates for black people in the 1950's and 60's, it was also tracking poverty rates for other races. See:
Poverty Data - Historical Poverty Tables: People - U.S Census Bureau

Just focusing on the black people in your graph however, it clearly illustrates what AJ's post was emphasizing; i.e. the poverty rate for black people was plummeting right up to LBJ's Great Society 'war on poverty' initiatives and then it leveled out.

The lesson to be learned is that we should at least look at whether government programs--even those in which trillions of dollars have been poured into them--are helping or actually hindering those they are supposed to help.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 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."

I'm not sure that Lingus created that graph from actual U.S. Census data because I am pretty sure that if the government was tracing poverty rates for black people in the 1950's and 60's, it was also tracking poverty rates for other races. See:
Poverty Data - Historical Poverty Tables: People - U.S Census Bureau

Just focusing on the black people in your graph however, it clearly illustrates what AJ's post was emphasizing; i.e. the poverty rate for black people was plummeting right up to LBJ's Great Society 'war on poverty' initiatives and then it leveled out.

The lesson to be learned is that we should at least look at whether government programs--even those in which trillions of dollars have been poured into them--are helping or actually hindering those they are supposed to help.

If we end Medicaid and food stamps tomorrow, how long before the poor who would have received those benefits be well off enough not to have needed or even qualified for them?

 

[Foxfyre]

"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."

I'm not sure that Lingus created that graph from actual U.S. Census data because I am pretty sure that if the government was tracing poverty rates for black people in the 1950's and 60's, it was also tracking poverty rates for other races. See:
Poverty Data - Historical Poverty Tables: People - U.S Census Bureau

Just focusing on the black people in your graph however, it clearly illustrates what AJ's post was emphasizing; i.e. the poverty rate for black people was plummeting right up to LBJ's Great Society 'war on poverty' initiatives and then it leveled out.

The lesson to be learned is that we should at least look at whether government programs--even those in which trillions of dollars have been poured into them--are helping or actually hindering those they are supposed to help.

If we end Medicaid and food stamps tomorrow, how long before the poor who would have received those benefits be well off enough not to have needed or even qualified for them?

You don't make millions upon millions of people dependent on government hand outs and then abruptly take them away. That would not be compassionate. But we can start slowly and carefully, to give people time to adjust, move such programs to the states and local communities and private charities where they belonged in the first place and where they will be administered much more economically, efficiently, and without the bulk of the corruption that naturally finds its way into all one-size-fits-all federal programs.

A moral society does take care of the truly helpless. But the fallacy comes in the assumption that the federal government is the entity that should do that.

 

[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 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."

I'm not sure that Lingus created that graph from actual U.S. Census data because I am pretty sure that if the government was tracing poverty rates for black people in the 1950's and 60's, it was also tracking poverty rates for other races. See:
Poverty Data - Historical Poverty Tables: People - U.S Census Bureau

Just focusing on the black people in your graph however, it clearly illustrates what AJ's post was emphasizing; i.e. the poverty rate for black people was plummeting right up to LBJ's Great Society 'war on poverty' initiatives and then it leveled out.

The lesson to be learned is that we should at least look at whether government programs--even those in which trillions of dollars have been poured into them--are helping or actually hindering those they are supposed to help.

The dotted line indicates that it is not based on actual data. AJ's post is right wing propaganda.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm not sure that Lingus created that graph from actual U.S. Census data because I am pretty sure that if the government was tracing poverty rates for black people in the 1950's and 60's, it was also tracking poverty rates for other races. See:
Poverty Data - Historical Poverty Tables: People - U.S Census Bureau

Just focusing on the black people in your graph however, it clearly illustrates what AJ's post was emphasizing; i.e. the poverty rate for black people was plummeting right up to LBJ's Great Society 'war on poverty' initiatives and then it leveled out.

The lesson to be learned is that we should at least look at whether government programs--even those in which trillions of dollars have been poured into them--are helping or actually hindering those they are supposed to help.

If we end Medicaid and food stamps tomorrow, how long before the poor who would have received those benefits be well off enough not to have needed or even qualified for them?

You don't make millions upon millions of people dependent on government hand outs and then abruptly take them away. That would not be compassionate. But we can start slowly and carefully, to give people time to adjust, move such programs to the states and local communities and private charities where they belonged in the first place and where they will be administered much more economically, efficiently, and without the bulk of the corruption that naturally finds its way into all one-size-fits-all federal programs.

A moral society does take care of the truly helpless. But the fallacy comes in the assumption that the federal government is the entity that should do that.

States and counties already control those programs. That is why the benefits are lower in red states. We tried a charity only society...it FAILED. And it will FAIL AGAIN. You haven't even considered the logistics of HOW a charity only society would be administered. Elderly people receive a check every month. It is a FIXED income they can manage, budget for and rely on.

You right wing social Darwinists would give the elderly a CUP, and let them get up every morning, head out to grovel at your haughty narcissistic feet.

 

[Listening]

You right wing social Darwinists would give the elderly a CUP, and let them get up every morning, head out to grovel at your haughty narcissistic feet.

We understand that those of you on the left really don't care about the destruction of the family. Hence, it is easy for you to see that family won't take care of someone who is elderly. Because there is no family.

Instead, you'll give them a room and let them die alone. I recently visited a woman in a rest home who, in her words, "had no one....no one", even though she did have family in the area.

I can fully understand why you'd worry about winding up on the street.

 

[Listening]

Elderly people receive a check every month. It is a FIXED income they can manage, budget for and rely on.

The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.

Average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker

Won't take long to manage that amount away. If you are paying rent (or even taxes on a house), it's worse.

 

[Indeependent]

Elderly people receive a check every month. It is a FIXED income they can manage, budget for and rely on.

The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.

Average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker

Won't take long to manage that amount away. If you are paying rent (or even taxes on a house), it's worse.

My in-laws were always sent a postcard in January stating the fixed monthly amount for the current years and that's the amount they received.
This only occurred 29 times in a row for my father-in-law and 22 times in a row for my mother-in-law.
Other than that, it wasn't too consistent.

 

[Listening]

Elderly people receive a check every month. It is a FIXED income they can manage, budget for and rely on.

The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.

Average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker

Won't take long to manage that amount away. If you are paying rent (or even taxes on a house), it's worse.

My in-laws were always sent a postcard in January stating the fixed monthly amount for the current years and that's the amount they received.
This only occurred 29 times in a row for my father-in-law and 22 times in a row for my mother-in-law.
Other than that, it wasn't too consistent.

As more boomers retire, the amount goes down. That is why Lizzy Warren (a 1% who wants to spend your money) wants to boost it up.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) threw her increasingly high-profile name behind expanding Social Security benefits instead of reducing them, rejecting calls from those in both parties to cut payments as a way to trim government spending.

Warren joins a growing push that includes Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who argue that rather than switch to a "chained" consumer price index that cuts retiree benefits, the nation should adopt CPI-E, which measures the actual cost of living for the elderly and would raise benefits to meet actual needs.

Elizabeth Warren: Expand Social Security

When the trust fund hits zero, predictions are that we'll see about 70% of todays benefits. So that 1200 will go down to about 850. Wow...that will be a lot of money to manage !

 

[Bfgrn]

The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.

Average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker

Won't take long to manage that amount away. If you are paying rent (or even taxes on a house), it's worse.

My in-laws were always sent a postcard in January stating the fixed monthly amount for the current years and that's the amount they received.
This only occurred 29 times in a row for my father-in-law and 22 times in a row for my mother-in-law.
Other than that, it wasn't too consistent.

As more boomers retire, the amount goes down. That is why Lizzy Warren (a 1% who wants to spend your money) wants to boost it up.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) threw her increasingly high-profile name behind expanding Social Security benefits instead of reducing them, rejecting calls from those in both parties to cut payments as a way to trim government spending.

Warren joins a growing push that includes Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who argue that rather than switch to a "chained" consumer price index that cuts retiree benefits, the nation should adopt CPI-E, which measures the actual cost of living for the elderly and would raise benefits to meet actual needs.

Elizabeth Warren: Expand Social Security

When the trust fund hits zero, predictions are that we'll see about 70% of todays benefits. So that 1200 will go down to about 850. Wow...that will be a lot of money to manage !

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

We don't have enough Elizabeth Warrens, Tom Harkins, Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Browns in Washington. Instead it is infested with Ayn Rand teabagger social Darwinist scum who are rooting for America's failure.


Hey grandma...get a fucking job, go back to college, start a new career...get your lazy ass out of that chair!!!

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

 

[zeke]

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.

Tell me how it is responsible for somebody with no basic education and no spouse to have three kids to support?

How about we make that a socially unattractive situation rather than go out of our way to reward it so that more people will avoid being in that position?

Hey hey, why don't you explain your sure fire method to do just what you said you would like to see done.

 

[theindian]

I read your post find more interesting information about this subject.

 

[Listening]

My in-laws were always sent a postcard in January stating the fixed monthly amount for the current years and that's the amount they received.
This only occurred 29 times in a row for my father-in-law and 22 times in a row for my mother-in-law.
Other than that, it wasn't too consistent.

As more boomers retire, the amount goes down. That is why Lizzy Warren (a 1% who wants to spend your money) wants to boost it up.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) threw her increasingly high-profile name behind expanding Social Security benefits instead of reducing them, rejecting calls from those in both parties to cut payments as a way to trim government spending.

Warren joins a growing push that includes Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who argue that rather than switch to a "chained" consumer price index that cuts retiree benefits, the nation should adopt CPI-E, which measures the actual cost of living for the elderly and would raise benefits to meet actual needs.

Elizabeth Warren: Expand Social Security

When the trust fund hits zero, predictions are that we'll see about 70% of todays benefits. So that 1200 will go down to about 850. Wow...that will be a lot of money to manage !

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

We don't have enough Elizabeth Warrens, Tom Harkins, Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Browns in Washington. Instead it is infested with Ayn Rand teabagger social Darwinist scum who are rooting for America's failure.


Hey grandma...get a fucking job, go back to college, start a new career...get your lazy ass out of that chair!!!

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

I'm sorry.

Did you take exception to my post..which was that payouts will decrease as the trustfund goes down and eventually bottom out at 70% of today's payouts (that is per the SS Boards projections....they've missed it bigtime before.

So if it goes to 50% and grandma does not have supplemental income (and the government has always said SS was not supposed to be your primary retirement income), then grandma can sit in her chair, probably freeze and waste away from malnutrition.

Please don't post about a check they can "rely on" when they can't rely on it.

I can't help this. And neither can Lizzy, the 1% because there is no appetite for doing anyting but meanstesting people off the program so Grandma can have a little more a little longer.

 

[Listening]

"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."

I'm not sure that Lingus created that graph from actual U.S. Census data because I am pretty sure that if the government was tracing poverty rates for black people in the 1950's and 60's, it was also tracking poverty rates for other races. See:
Poverty Data - Historical Poverty Tables: People - U.S Census Bureau

Just focusing on the black people in your graph however, it clearly illustrates what AJ's post was emphasizing; i.e. the poverty rate for black people was plummeting right up to LBJ's Great Society 'war on poverty' initiatives and then it leveled out.

The lesson to be learned is that we should at least look at whether government programs--even those in which trillions of dollars have been poured into them--are helping or actually hindering those they are supposed to help.

If we end Medicaid and food stamps tomorrow, how long before the poor who would have received those benefits be well off enough not to have needed or even qualified for them?

Why not ask Bill Clinton ?

Didn't he reform welfare ?

I know there was both good and bad from that.

Nothing is ever 100% successful.

 

[Vox]

The federal government has promoted poverty in America.

which was the goal from the start - to make everyody poor and dependednt on the government.

The strong prosperous middle class is a natural enemy of the left.
It has to be wiped out.

And this agenda is being put to life during the last 5 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not sure that Lingus created that graph from actual U.S. Census data because I am pretty sure that if the government was tracing poverty rates for black people in the 1950's and 60's, it was also tracking poverty rates for other races. See:
Poverty Data - Historical Poverty Tables: People - U.S Census Bureau

Just focusing on the black people in your graph however, it clearly illustrates what AJ's post was emphasizing; i.e. the poverty rate for black people was plummeting right up to LBJ's Great Society 'war on poverty' initiatives and then it leveled out.

The lesson to be learned is that we should at least look at whether government programs--even those in which trillions of dollars have been poured into them--are helping or actually hindering those they are supposed to help.

If we end Medicaid and food stamps tomorrow, how long before the poor who would have received those benefits be well off enough not to have needed or even qualified for them?

Why not ask Bill Clinton ?

Didn't he reform welfare ?

I know there was both good and bad from that.

Nothing is ever 100% successful.

That avoids my question.

If people are going to come here and assert that government spending on low income Americans does more harm than good, then they need to show how, where, and why things would get better if the spending stopped.

Medicaid is probably the biggest program for low income Americans.

Conservatives say it does more harm than good.

So consider it eliminated, and tell us how, when, and why things get better.


...you see? No one on the right will have anything close to a good answer. That's simply when you take the right's shouting about something and break it down into its relevant components and analyze it,

it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Listening]

If we end Medicaid and food stamps tomorrow, how long before the poor who would have received those benefits be well off enough not to have needed or even qualified for them?

Why not ask Bill Clinton ?

Didn't he reform welfare ?

I know there was both good and bad from that.

Nothing is ever 100% successful.

That avoids my question.

If people are going to come here and assert that government spending on low income Americans does more harm than good, then they need to show how, where, and why things would get better if the spending stopped.

Medicaid is probably the biggest program for low income Americans.

Conservatives say it does more harm than good.

So consider it eliminated, and tell us how, when, and why things get better.


...you see? No one on the right will have anything close to a good answer. That's simply when you take the right's shouting about something and break it down into its relevant components and analyze it,

it doesn't make any sense.

I think Bill Clintons action are an example of what you are looking for. He reformed welfare. That was my understanding. What happened ?

I think there were some good thing and some bad things that happened.

So, I would guess you'd need to consider how to keep the good and avoid the "bad" as you work to reform other programs.

The generalizations that you whine about won't take place in total.

Look at Obamacare....the unions wanted it, we didn't. Now it looks like we are going to get and they are not.

How'd that happen ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not sure that Lingus created that graph from actual U.S. Census data because I am pretty sure that if the government was tracing poverty rates for black people in the 1950's and 60's, it was also tracking poverty rates for other races. See:
Poverty Data - Historical Poverty Tables: People - U.S Census Bureau

Just focusing on the black people in your graph however, it clearly illustrates what AJ's post was emphasizing; i.e. the poverty rate for black people was plummeting right up to LBJ's Great Society 'war on poverty' initiatives and then it leveled out.

The lesson to be learned is that we should at least look at whether government programs--even those in which trillions of dollars have been poured into them--are helping or actually hindering those they are supposed to help.

If we end Medicaid and food stamps tomorrow, how long before the poor who would have received those benefits be well off enough not to have needed or even qualified for them?

You don't make millions upon millions of people dependent on government hand outs and then abruptly take them away. That would not be compassionate. But we can start slowly and carefully, to give people time to adjust, move such programs to the states and local communities and private charities where they belonged in the first place and where they will be administered much more economically, efficiently, and without the bulk of the corruption that naturally finds its way into all one-size-fits-all federal programs.

A moral society does take care of the truly helpless. But the fallacy comes in the assumption that the federal government is the entity that should do that.

So, a single woman with 2 children and a low paying job is eligible for Medicaid. You take her Medicaid away.

Where does she find the resources to now pay for her and her children's healthcare?

How does her life get better now that you have had your way, i.e., you have made no longer dependent on the government for healthcare?

 

[Listening]

If we end Medicaid and food stamps tomorrow, how long before the poor who would have received those benefits be well off enough not to have needed or even qualified for them?

You don't make millions upon millions of people dependent on government hand outs and then abruptly take them away. That would not be compassionate. But we can start slowly and carefully, to give people time to adjust, move such programs to the states and local communities and private charities where they belonged in the first place and where they will be administered much more economically, efficiently, and without the bulk of the corruption that naturally finds its way into all one-size-fits-all federal programs.

A moral society does take care of the truly helpless. But the fallacy comes in the assumption that the federal government is the entity that should do that.

So, a single woman with 2 children and a low paying job is eligible for Medicaid. You take her Medicaid away.

Where does she find the resources to now pay for her and her children's healthcare?

How does her life get better now that you have had your way, i.e., you have made no longer dependent on the government for healthcare?

Best case: You train her to get a better paying job. That assumes Obama can make a job for her...but I digress. She gets benefits.

Next Best: Find the dad and get his ass involved (like in make him pay for some her health care).

O.K.: She gets help from the state or some charity to take care of her health care needs.

Poor: Her children don't get preventative care

Really bad: She despairs

Worst: The state has to take her kids because she can't/won't care for them anymore.

Which do you want ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why not ask Bill Clinton ?

Didn't he reform welfare ?

I know there was both good and bad from that.

Nothing is ever 100% successful.

That avoids my question.

If people are going to come here and assert that government spending on low income Americans does more harm than good, then they need to show how, where, and why things would get better if the spending stopped.

Medicaid is probably the biggest program for low income Americans.

Conservatives say it does more harm than good.

So consider it eliminated, and tell us how, when, and why things get better.


...you see? No one on the right will have anything close to a good answer. That's simply when you take the right's shouting about something and break it down into its relevant components and analyze it,

it doesn't make any sense.

I think Bill Clintons action are an example of what you are looking for. He reformed welfare. That was my understanding. What happened ?

I think there were some good thing and some bad things that happened.

So, I would guess you'd need to consider how to keep the good and avoid the "bad" as you work to reform other programs.

The generalizations that you whine about won't take place in total.

Look at Obamacare....the unions wanted it, we didn't. Now it looks like we are going to get and they are not.

How'd that happen ?

Why are you complaining that I'm making generalizations? Why aren't you attacking the OP for generalization?