Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[Listening]

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?

I said the generalizations you were whining about (like those in the OP). I didn't say you were making them.

LHTR

 

[Foxfyre]

I would be curious to see how you guys conclude that the OP is 'generalized' in any way when it asks specific questions that can be answered 'yes' or 'no'.

 

[Listening]

I would be curious to see how you guys conclude that the OP is 'generalized' in any way when it asks specific questions that can be answered 'yes' or 'no'.

Good point.

My statement should have said something like...this seems like an all or nothing kind of discussion.

The left says the right wants to take everything away from people (all help) which we know is not correct.

The right says these programs are detrimental, which is not true for everyone.

My mistake.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would be curious to see how you guys conclude that the OP is 'generalized' in any way when it asks specific questions that can be answered 'yes' or 'no'.

Good point.

My statement should have said something like...this seems like an all or nothing kind of discussion.

The left says the right wants to take everything away from people (all help) which we know is not correct.

The right says these programs are detrimental, which is not true for everyone.

My mistake.

Thanks for the adjustment. I was beginning to question my communication skills.

But actually it is an 'all or nothing' discussion only if you aren't given an option of 'none of the above' along with an opportunity to qualify or explain. The OP did that.

The purpose of the OP was to focus on poverty in the U.S.A. and the government's contribution, if any, to that. We have USMB members who see the government as the ONLY effective means to alleviate poverty or at least necessary to alleviate poverty. And we have USMB members who see the government as at least a contributor to poverty.

In a broader sense, it raises the question of what produces the best results in addressing the problem: More private sector prosperity? Or more government charity and programs? Or does it take both?

A comprehensive and honest discussion does have to include the net results in what government has done to alleviate poverty thus far.

 

[Listening]

I would be curious to see how you guys conclude that the OP is 'generalized' in any way when it asks specific questions that can be answered 'yes' or 'no'.

Good point.

My statement should have said something like...this seems like an all or nothing kind of discussion.

The left says the right wants to take everything away from people (all help) which we know is not correct.

The right says these programs are detrimental, which is not true for everyone.

My mistake.

Thanks for the adjustment. I was beginning to question my communication skills.

But actually it is an 'all or nothing' discussion only if you aren't given an option of 'none of the above' along with an opportunity to qualify or explain. The OP did that.

The purpose of the OP was to focus on poverty in the U.S.A. and the government's contribution, if any, to that. We have USMB members who see the government as the ONLY effective means to alleviate poverty or at least necessary to alleviate poverty. And we have USMB members who see the government as at least a contributor to poverty.

In a broader sense, it raises the question of what produces the best results in addressing the problem: More private sector prosperity? Or more government charity and programs? Or does it take both?

A comprehensive and honest discussion does have to include the net results in what government has done to alleviate poverty thus far.

I would suggest we need to have a discussion around who is RESPONSIBLE for folks such as "the poor".

That must preceed this conversation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good point.

My statement should have said something like...this seems like an all or nothing kind of discussion.

The left says the right wants to take everything away from people (all help) which we know is not correct.

The right says these programs are detrimental, which is not true for everyone.

My mistake.

Thanks for the adjustment. I was beginning to question my communication skills.

But actually it is an 'all or nothing' discussion only if you aren't given an option of 'none of the above' along with an opportunity to qualify or explain. The OP did that.

The purpose of the OP was to focus on poverty in the U.S.A. and the government's contribution, if any, to that. We have USMB members who see the government as the ONLY effective means to alleviate poverty or at least necessary to alleviate poverty. And we have USMB members who see the government as at least a contributor to poverty.

In a broader sense, it raises the question of what produces the best results in addressing the problem: More private sector prosperity? Or more government charity and programs? Or does it take both?

A comprehensive and honest discussion does have to include the net results in what government has done to alleviate poverty thus far.

I would suggest we need to have a discussion around who is RESPONSIBLE for folks such as "the poor".

That must preceed this conversation.

That is a reasonable consideration.

As an American citizen, presumably blessed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the Founders intended, I can't see that anybody but me is responsible for me or my choices whether I am rich or poor. If you do something to me that illegally or unethically impoverishes me or limits my ability to prosper, in my sense of justice, you should be held accountable. But you are not responsible to ensure that I prosper nor can you legitimately be compelled to allieviate my poverty if I am poor.

If you choose to help me out because I am poor, that would be a kind and virtuous act so long as you don't enable my choice to be poor. But in a society that values individual liberty, you should never be required to deal with my poverty against your will.

I know there are some who will argue with that logic.

 

[Foxfyre]

And if we assume that I am overruled in my convictions, and government is given a legitimate role in alleviating poverty by taking resources I have earned and transferring those resources to those who have not earned them, we should be intellectually honest as to the net overall consequences of such redistibution of wealth.

It is those consequences that I think is the most difficult concept for pro-government-war-on-poverty folks to address honestly and introspectively.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Poverty breeds poverty. It takes money to make money. Lack of opportunity which results from poverty, leads to a lack of opportunity, like education, which leads to low-paying jobs, which again leads to lack of opportunity, perpetuating the cycle.

Education is the answer. Making sure that even students in crumbling schools with inadequate teachers have the opportunity to learn the same things that more affluent students are afforded. We can't continue to keep passing along failing students just because it's convenient or because quotas need to be met. Only then will the cycle begin to end. It's going to take a serious effort by both the government and local communities comprised of private enterprises stepping up to the plate.

I would also suggest that we trim the fat, the "touchy-feely" curriculum and focus limited time and resources on basics.

 

[DiamondDave]

Good point.

My statement should have said something like...this seems like an all or nothing kind of discussion.

The left says the right wants to take everything away from people (all help) which we know is not correct.

The right says these programs are detrimental, which is not true for everyone.

My mistake.

Thanks for the adjustment. I was beginning to question my communication skills.

But actually it is an 'all or nothing' discussion only if you aren't given an option of 'none of the above' along with an opportunity to qualify or explain. The OP did that.

The purpose of the OP was to focus on poverty in the U.S.A. and the government's contribution, if any, to that. We have USMB members who see the government as the ONLY effective means to alleviate poverty or at least necessary to alleviate poverty. And we have USMB members who see the government as at least a contributor to poverty.

In a broader sense, it raises the question of what produces the best results in addressing the problem: More private sector prosperity? Or more government charity and programs? Or does it take both?

A comprehensive and honest discussion does have to include the net results in what government has done to alleviate poverty thus far.

I would suggest we need to have a discussion around who is RESPONSIBLE for folks such as "the poor".

That must preceed this conversation.

They are responsible for themselves.. like everyone else.. unless they are actually INCAPABLE of taking care of themselves (a VERY RARE occurrence).. and in that case they should be wards of the state, if they are not being taken care of by family.. and as wards of the state, (like those imprisoned, committed to institutions, etc) the freedoms that others have are not there for them as wards of the state

 

[Listening]

Thanks for the adjustment. I was beginning to question my communication skills.

But actually it is an 'all or nothing' discussion only if you aren't given an option of 'none of the above' along with an opportunity to qualify or explain. The OP did that.

The purpose of the OP was to focus on poverty in the U.S.A. and the government's contribution, if any, to that. We have USMB members who see the government as the ONLY effective means to alleviate poverty or at least necessary to alleviate poverty. And we have USMB members who see the government as at least a contributor to poverty.

In a broader sense, it raises the question of what produces the best results in addressing the problem: More private sector prosperity? Or more government charity and programs? Or does it take both?

A comprehensive and honest discussion does have to include the net results in what government has done to alleviate poverty thus far.

I would suggest we need to have a discussion around who is RESPONSIBLE for folks such as "the poor".

That must preceed this conversation.

That is a reasonable consideration.

As an American citizen, presumably blessed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the Founders intended, I can't see that anybody but me is responsible for me or my choices whether I am rich or poor. If you do something to me that illegally or unethically impoverishes me or limits my ability to prosper, in my sense of justice, you should be held accountable. But you are not responsible to ensure that I prosper nor can you legitimately be compelled to allieviate my poverty if I am poor.

If you choose to help me out because I am poor, that would be a kind and virtuous act so long as you don't enable my choice to be poor. But in a society that values individual liberty, you should never be required to deal with my poverty against your will.

I know there are some who will argue with that logic.

I am not sure it is "logic" as it is a foundational principle you've established for yourself.

I would say I've pretty much adopted the same philosophy.

At the extreme, I would say that means you could leave me to starve (if I am starving because of bad choices) and I would not hold that against you. It is my fault.

And I only want a level playing field (of course that opens up a whole can of worms) to be able to keep from starving.

At the same time, I am not going to let someone else starve. It goes against my nature and what I've been taught.

Continuing to type....I'll keep digging myself a hole.

Because if it is against my nature, why would I not want government to make SURE that people are not starving or dieing prematurely ? Because that goes against a conflicting foundational principle that I am not going to force others to share my philosophy.

These things are at the basis of every conflict we see played out on these boards. While I think there are a lot of liberal assholes, I also know many liberals who are very caring generous people. I think the world is better off because of them. I just don't want their moron cousins to try and codify that generosity such that it forces me into something I don't want.

Which brings me to another key principle. The distrust of government (have you ever read Thomas Sowell's A Conflict Of Visions ?) and of people.

Government is power and power is difficult to control. I fundamentally distrust government and think they rarely do anything well outside of the only things they can do (that no one else can).

This principle, again conflicts or exists in tension with the others to larger or lesser degrees. Government is an option....just a really pathetic one...and one that has bondage written all over it.

In my estimation, bringing all these points to the table and working through objectives for liberty and charity (I am not a fan of that word....charity used to mean something different...it really was help...not a handout) is what will set the discussions around the point you raised in the OP.

 

[RightDown]

It is not controversial that LBJ's war on poverty halved the poverty rate. It's a fact.

SS keeps 20+ million out of poverty. A fact as well.

Those are what we in the Royal Air Force call facts.

To claim that the federal gov. is failing in its remedial efforts or somehow causing poverty is delusional at best and dishonest at worst.

 

[Listening]

And if we assume that I am overruled in my convictions, and government is given a legitimate role in alleviating poverty by taking resources I have earned and transferring those resources to those who have not earned them, we should be intellectually honest as to the net overall consequences of such redistibution of wealth.

It is those consequences that I think is the most difficult concept for pro-government-war-on-poverty folks to address honestly and introspectively.

What would that answer look like ?

I can take food stamps and a piece that Fox News did on them that showed the inbred nature of them (food companies certainly seem to like them) and lobby for them...those wonderful free market types that they are. You can see people scamming the system. Fox had it. I have been in grocery lines where someone runs the goods through the check out line...pays for them with food stamps.....and then runs expensive bottles of alcohol along with a couple of carton of cigarrettes through the line and pays with cash. Yes, I am judging the situation..sue me.

But I also know people who used them to get through a rough time. The served their purpose.

Is it good or bad ? How do you decide ? What are the metrics ?

 

[Listening]

It is not controversial that LBJ's war on poverty halved the poverty rate. It's a fact.

SS keeps 20+ million out of poverty. A fact as well.

Those are what we in the Royal Air Force call facts.

To claim that the federal gov. is failing in its remedial efforts or somehow causing poverty is delusional at best and dishonest at worst.

Facts please (your claims don't match what has been posted).

There are people who've researched people in "poverty" and found that they live pretty good.

Census: Americans in ?Poverty? Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves | CNS News

How does SS keep 20 million out of poverty ? Please, praytell...inform us.

Or does the Royal AirFoce have a habit of shooting off at the mouth with nothing to back it up ?

 

[Foxfyre]

And if we assume that I am overruled in my convictions, and government is given a legitimate role in alleviating poverty by taking resources I have earned and transferring those resources to those who have not earned them, we should be intellectually honest as to the net overall consequences of such redistibution of wealth.

It is those consequences that I think is the most difficult concept for pro-government-war-on-poverty folks to address honestly and introspectively.

What would that answer look like ?

I can take food stamps and a piece that Fox News did on them that showed the inbred nature of them (food companies certainly seem to like them) and lobby for them...those wonderful free market types that they are. You can see people scamming the system. Fox had it. I have been in grocery lines where someone runs the goods through the check out line...pays for them with food stamps.....and then runs expensive bottles of alcohol along with a couple of carton of cigarrettes through the line and pays with cash. Yes, I am judging the situation..sue me.

But I also know people who used them to get through a rough time. The served their purpose.

Is it good or bad ? How do you decide ? What are the metrics ?

The metrics are

1. How would the people have managed to get through a rough time WITHOUT the food stamps?

2. If a program creates dependency or encourages poverty for more people than it actually provides necessary relief, should we not rethink that program? Honestly and comprehensively consider unintended negative consequences?

3. Is there a better, more humane, more efficient, more effective means to help people?

4. Should the federal government be given power to address this problem at all?

 

[Listening]

Thanks for the adjustment. I was beginning to question my communication skills.

But actually it is an 'all or nothing' discussion only if you aren't given an option of 'none of the above' along with an opportunity to qualify or explain. The OP did that.

The purpose of the OP was to focus on poverty in the U.S.A. and the government's contribution, if any, to that. We have USMB members who see the government as the ONLY effective means to alleviate poverty or at least necessary to alleviate poverty. And we have USMB members who see the government as at least a contributor to poverty.

In a broader sense, it raises the question of what produces the best results in addressing the problem: More private sector prosperity? Or more government charity and programs? Or does it take both?

A comprehensive and honest discussion does have to include the net results in what government has done to alleviate poverty thus far.

I would suggest we need to have a discussion around who is RESPONSIBLE for folks such as "the poor".

That must preceed this conversation.

They are responsible for themselves.. like everyone else.. unless they are actually INCAPABLE of taking care of themselves (a VERY RARE occurrence).. and in that case they should be wards of the state, if they are not being taken care of by family.. and as wards of the state, (like those imprisoned, committed to institutions, etc) the freedoms that others have are not there for them as wards of the state

I am not arguing with you. What I am saying is that the right needs to be pretty firm in what this means.

They've let the left create a rather large dependent class and now we need to change that...it's not going to be easy or short-term. But it will require that the right state just how it is that people will be cared for in our society.

Here is a question I ask liberals all the time....Is retirement a right ?

 

[Listening]

And if we assume that I am overruled in my convictions, and government is given a legitimate role in alleviating poverty by taking resources I have earned and transferring those resources to those who have not earned them, we should be intellectually honest as to the net overall consequences of such redistibution of wealth.

It is those consequences that I think is the most difficult concept for pro-government-war-on-poverty folks to address honestly and introspectively.

What would that answer look like ?

I can take food stamps and a piece that Fox News did on them that showed the inbred nature of them (food companies certainly seem to like them) and lobby for them...those wonderful free market types that they are. You can see people scamming the system. Fox had it. I have been in grocery lines where someone runs the goods through the check out line...pays for them with food stamps.....and then runs expensive bottles of alcohol along with a couple of carton of cigarrettes through the line and pays with cash. Yes, I am judging the situation..sue me.

But I also know people who used them to get through a rough time. The served their purpose.

Is it good or bad ? How do you decide ? What are the metrics ?

The metrics are

1. How would the people have managed to get through a rough time WITHOUT the food stamps?

2. If a program creates dependency or encourages poverty for more people than it actually provides necessary relief, should we not rethink that program? Honestly and comprehensively consider unintended negative consequences?

3. Is there a better, more humane, more efficient, more effective means to help people?

4. Should the federal government be given power to address this problem at all?

I understand why you put these as metrics. However, I would propose a much different set.

And I would basically say that under my metrics the program fails miserably. That does not mean that people don't benefit from it. But a lot don't and a great many do become dependent...and many simply scam the system.

Would I kill it ? Absolutely.

Would I try to get food to people who really need it ? Absolutely. And I think a great many others would feel the same way.

 

[RightDown]

It is not controversial that LBJ's war on poverty halved the poverty rate. It's a fact.

SS keeps 20+ million out of poverty. A fact as well.

Those are what we in the Royal Air Force call facts.

To claim that the federal gov. is failing in its remedial efforts or somehow causing poverty is delusional at best and dishonest at worst.

Facts please (your claims don't match what has been posted).

There are people who've researched people in "poverty" and found that they live pretty good.

Census: Americans in ?Poverty? Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves | CNS News

How does SS keep 20 million out of poverty ? Please, praytell...inform us.

Or does the Royal AirFoce have a habit of shooting off at the mouth with nothing to back it up ?

Did you see the OP? Did you see how the poverty rate halved after the imposition of LBJ's war on poverty? My claims match up damn near perfectly.

The first line on the graph shows the number of people in povery which increases yearly b/c the population increases annually.

How does SS keep 20 million people above the poverty line? That's easy. SS is an intergenerationally funded social insurance program where payroll taxes of today fund today's benefits. People are paid their entitlement and forover 15 million elderly, those benefit payments keep them above the current povery line.

The remaining benefactors are widows, children and the disabled.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans Out Of Poverty: A State-By-State Analysis ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

One more thing: As for shooting my mouth off, I expect you'll apologize for posting that bit of nonsense.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thomas Sowell, in his amazing and most thought provoking book "Vision of the Annointed" addresses this in the opening section. He had just recounted the pattern of how those who claim the best of intentions generally address societal issues and problems. And then addresses the issue of poverty (among other things) as illustration:

(In Chapter One of Vision of the Annointed. Sowell includes references to his sources for all statistical data. I can't provide page numbers as I am copying this from my Kindle and it doesn't show the page numbers as they appear in the hard copy of the book.)​

Excerpt:

STAGE 1. THE 'CRISIS': Given that the purpose of the 'war on poverty' was to reduce dependency, the question is: How much dependency was there at the time and was it increasing or decreasing before the new policies were instituted? In short, what was the 'crisis' for which the anointed were proposing a 'solution'?​

As of the time the 'war on poverty' programs began, the number of people who lived below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since 1960, and was only about half of what it had been in 1950. On the more fundamental issue of dependency, the situation was even more clearly improving. The proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level without counting government benefits declined by one third from 1950 to 1965. In short dependency on government transfers as a means of warding off poverty was declining when the 'war on poverty' began.

STAGE 2. THE 'SOLUTION': The Economic Opportunity act was passed in 1964, creating the Office of Economic Opportunity, the 'war on poverty' agency. As an historian of poverty programs put it, "Congress was quick to buy a program that might help welfare wither away." The Council of Economic Advisers declared "conquest of poverty is well within our power."​

STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The percentage of people dependent upon the federal government to keep above the poverty line increased. Although the number of such dependent people had been declining for more than a decade before the 'war on poverty' began, this downwar trend now reversed itself and began rising within a few years after that program got under way.​

Official poverty continued its decline for some time as massive federal outlays lifted many people above the official poverty line, but not out of dependency--the original goal. Eventually, however, even official poverty began to rise so that a larger number of people were in poverty in 1992 than were in poverty in 1964 when the 'war on poverty' began.

If Sowell is right--and I would bet a very nice steak dinner that he is--this alone should cause us to back up and rethink what we do. Have all those trillions we have poured into poverty programs created more dependency than have actually helped people who would not have otherwise helped themselves? Cannot reasonable and intelligent people look at it from that perspective and come to a rational and supportable decision without demonizing or insulting some political party or group or demographic?

(Note: I was introduced to Sowell's book some time after I started this thread. I wish I had had it when I started the thread. )

 

[Listening]

Thomas Sowell, in his amazing and most thought provoking book "Vision of the Annointed" addresses this in the opening section. He had just recounted the pattern of how those who claim the best of intentions generally address societal issues and problems. And then addresses the issue of poverty (among other things) as illustration:

(In Chapter One of Vision of the Annointed. Sowell includes references to his sources for all statistical data. I can't provide page numbers as I am copying this from my Kindle and it doesn't show the page numbers as they appear in the hard copy of the book.)​

Excerpt:

STAGE 1. THE 'CRISIS': Given that the purpose of the 'war on poverty' was to reduce dependency, the question is: How much dependency was there at the time and was it increasing or decreasing before the new policies were instituted? In short, what was the 'crisis' for which the anointed were proposing a 'solution'?​

As of the time the 'war on poverty' programs began, the number of people who lived below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since 1960, and was only about half of what it had been in 1950. On the more fundamental issue of dependency, the situation was even more clearly improving. The proportion of people whose earnings put them below the povrty level without counting government benefits declined by one third from 1950 to 1965. In short dependency on government transfers as a means of warding off poverty was declining when the 'war on poverty' began.

STAGE 2. THE 'SOLUTION': The Economic Opportunity act was passed in 1964, creating the Office of Economic Opportunity, the 'war on poverty' agency. As an historian of poverty programs put it, "Congress was quick to buy a program that might help welfare wither away." The Council of Economic Advisers declared "conquest of poverty is well within our power."​

STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The percentage of people dependent upon the federal government to keep above the poverty line increased. Although the number of such dependent people had been declining for more than a decade before the 'war on poverty' began, this downwar trend now reversed itself and began rising within a few years after that program got under way.​

Official poverty continued its decline for some time as massive federal outlays lifted many people above the official poverty line, but not out of dependency--the original goal. Eventually, however, even official poverty began to rise so that a larger number of people were in poverty in 1992 than were in poverty in 1964 when the 'war on poverty' began.

If Sowell is right--and I would bet a very nice steak dinner that he is--this alone should cause us to back up and rethink what we do. Have all those trillions we have poured into poverty programs created more dependency than have actually helped people who would not have otherwise helped themselves? Cannot reasonable and intelligent people look at it from that perspective and come to a rational and supportable decision without demonizing or insulting some political party or group or demographic?

(Note: I was introduced to Sowell's book some time after I started this thread. I wish I had had it when I started the thread. )

Add to that the idea that SS somehow keeps people out of poverty. That is their money for crying out loud. They put into the system and they are taking out (albeit a bit more than they put in).

That's like saying my 401K keeps me out of poverty. The government didn't put that there. I did. So I am the one keeping myself out of poverty.

Royal Airforce Bullshyt.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thomas Sowell, in his amazing and most thought provoking book "Vision of the Annointed" addresses this in the opening section. He had just recounted the pattern of how those who claim the best of intentions generally address societal issues and problems. And then addresses the issue of poverty (among other things) as illustration:

(In Chapter One of Vision of the Annointed. Sowell includes references to his sources for all statistical data. I can't provide page numbers as I am copying this from my Kindle and it doesn't show the page numbers as they appear in the hard copy of the book.)​

Excerpt:

STAGE 1. THE 'CRISIS': Given that the purpose of the 'war on poverty' was to reduce dependency, the question is: How much dependency was there at the time and was it increasing or decreasing before the new policies were instituted? In short, what was the 'crisis' for which the anointed were proposing a 'solution'?​

As of the time the 'war on poverty' programs began, the number of people who lived below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since 1960, and was only about half of what it had been in 1950. On the more fundamental issue of dependency, the situation was even more clearly improving. The proportion of people whose earnings put them below the povrty level without counting government benefits declined by one third from 1950 to 1965. In short dependency on government transfers as a means of warding off poverty was declining when the 'war on poverty' began.

STAGE 2. THE 'SOLUTION': The Economic Opportunity act was passed in 1964, creating the Office of Economic Opportunity, the 'war on poverty' agency. As an historian of poverty programs put it, "Congress was quick to buy a program that might help welfare wither away." The Council of Economic Advisers declared "conquest of poverty is well within our power."​

STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The percentage of people dependent upon the federal government to keep above the poverty line increased. Although the number of such dependent people had been declining for more than a decade before the 'war on poverty' began, this downwar trend now reversed itself and began rising within a few years after that program got under way.​

Official poverty continued its decline for some time as massive federal outlays lifted many people above the official poverty line, but not out of dependency--the original goal. Eventually, however, even official poverty began to rise so that a larger number of people were in poverty in 1992 than were in poverty in 1964 when the 'war on poverty' began.

If Sowell is right--and I would bet a very nice steak dinner that he is--this alone should cause us to back up and rethink what we do. Have all those trillions we have poured into poverty programs created more dependency than have actually helped people who would not have otherwise helped themselves? Cannot reasonable and intelligent people look at it from that perspective and come to a rational and supportable decision without demonizing or insulting some political party or group or demographic?

(Note: I was introduced to Sowell's book some time after I started this thread. I wish I had had it when I started the thread. )

Add to that the idea that SS somehow keeps people out of poverty. That is their money for crying out loud. They put into the system and they are taking out (albeit a bit more than they put in).

That's like saying my 401K keeps me out of poverty. The government didn't put that there. I did. So I am the one keeping myself out of poverty.

Royal Airforce Bullshyt.

Yes, social security does provide a means to help some escape poverty. But is it the most efficient and effective way to do that? Does social security produce more unintended negative consequences than it does good? These are questions that visionaries are not afraid to ask. Not afraid to explore. And intellectually honest people would prefer an honest answer rather than one that fits a particular ideology whether the answer to such questions are 'yes' or 'no'.