Posted on 08/25/2016 10:48:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson kicked off the War on Poverty during his State of the Union speech, declaring "unconditional war on poverty in America." Congress joined with him and created programs to provide benefits to those in need. "Our aim," stated Johnson, "is not only to relieve the symptoms of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it."
The focus was on how many people we could provide assistance to and how much money was spent, not on how many people moved upward into opportunity jobs and higher incomes. Since then, our government has spent more than $22 trillion, yet we have not hit the target. Money spent, programs created, more people in poverty.
According to the U.S. Census website, 11.1 percent of Americans were living at or below the poverty level in 1973. In 2014, that number had climbed to 14.8 percent. We have failed not only to win the war, but to hold our ground.
Our current path is not working. In response, the House Republicans have rolled out "A Better Way to Fight Poverty." Their goal is to move from "a broken system that traps too many people in a cycle of dependence to one that emphasizes work and independence, to give people on welfare a chance to draw a paycheck, not a welfare check...the opportunity to succeed at home and at work."
Johnson's intent to improve the lives of Americans is to be commended -- but the fact is we have not successfully attacked and solved the problem. To continue down the same path, without adjustment, would be insanity. Albert Einstein may have defined insanity best, as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
The Republican approach contains five areas of focus: reward work, tailor benefits to people's needs, demand results, improve schools and skills, and plan and save for the future. According to the speaker.gov website, "Some 44 percent of work-capable households using federal rental assistance report no annual income from wages." This just does not make sense.
The first area, reward work, encompasses "better access to job training and skills development," giving "states greater flexibility to help people find a new job more quickly," and providing "more children...access to special education services, and mental or physical therapies."
Unfortunately, today's system often penalizes those who work and get promoted. With overlapping programs and benefits, a new job or higher income can result in a larger deduction of benefits -- leading people to decline offers of new positions or promotions to maintain their income. This is where the second area of focus, tailoring benefits to people's needs, will help. By providing "new authority for states to link poverty programs... states could repackage your benefits." It would also provide more flexibility, allowing housing allowance recipients to move to "areas with more jobs and opportunities."
By demanding results, not programs, we would track improvements in peoples' lives, not in money spent. This would be done through pay-for-success partnerships, as well as pay-for-outcome models.
Johnson was right when he identified poor schools as one reason for continued poverty. The problem is that, after 50 years of government control and spending, many school are still failing their students. The fourth area of focus is to improve schools and skills and address the problems in a different way.
Instead of waiting to begin teaching when a child reaches kindergarten age, it will include early childhood development programs. Instead of pushing failing students ahead, it will start and programs that seek to rehabilitate at-risk youth. Access to better meals for children and improvement to job training would also be addressed.
The fifth area of focus, plan and save for the future, underscores how very different the Republican approach is from the current system. The plan is not only to provide help and assistance, but to offer a path to a drastically better future to those currently in poverty -- a future that they would control. This will include expanding "access to basic banking services" and "access to affordable retirement advice, providing low- and middle-income families."
While the intent of progressive Democrats might be commendable, one fact is clear: government-controlled programs have not worked. Our current system has created a culture of dependence and despondency rather than given "our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities," as was Johnson's goal. To meet this goal, government, individuals and corporations must work together to create opportunities, provide ladders up and encourage all to work towards their best future.
Johnson absolutely solved the problem for which he created the "War on Poverty." His solution was a *HUGE* success.
It wasn't designed to get people out of poverty. It was designed to flip previously disenfranchised voters from Republican to Democrat.
You see, North Eastern Liberal Republicans have always resented Southern and other states disenfranchising Blacks on the bases of failure to pay taxes. The claim was made that "Poll Taxes" were the means by which Southern racists suppressed black voters, and so they created an amendment to ban "Poll Taxes", but then snuck in three little words "Or other tax."
This event created a separation between government accountability to Taxpayers, and spending.
The North Eastern Liberal Republicans did this to gain more votes and more power, and supposedly "help" poor people.
Racist Southern Democrat Johnson immediately realized the threat to the status quo that 10 million new voters would pose to his party, and so he launched his scheme to "flip" all or most of these previously Republican voters into becoming Democrats.
He created the massive "vote bribing" scheme that we historically refer to as "The Great Society", or the "War on Poverty".
It did successfully flip black voters to the Democrat party, and they have kept this constituency ever since.
So no, the "War on Poverty" was not a failure, it was a complete and total success at it's real purpose.
Of course it cost us 21 Trillion dollars in already spent money and it massively increased crime (due to all those fatherless children it created) and it will eventually wreck the nation's finances completely, but at gaining 10 million votes to keep Democrats in power, it was a roaring success!
Use old buildings for bunkhouses and have a soup kitchen and a school in each one.
"But that would make folks have low esteem."
Only govt can say, “We TRIED to solve a problem that doesn’t exist\will always exist...and failed (let’s not even discuss if it was Constitutional). So, we’re doubling down on the process.”
IIRC, they say Medicare, part D (or some-such), is the *ONLY* Federal program that, today, is within budget projections. I have yet to hear about any of the OTHER programs being dismantled.
Notice, they note the over-lap; but never will they come to the right conclusion re: shutting-down\merging the same. Say, *maybe*, THERE’S where you can ‘save’ a few $$, assholes!
Unfortunately, as it turns out, giving money to poor people simply creates more poor people - and sucking away at the public teat is such a hard habit to break that it becomes something that carries over several generations.
Is it really fair to dock your kids their school books and summer camps to pay for those who just don’t want off the dole?
Excellent point and so true, but the rats are to ignorant to get it.
Other than LBJ want blacks to vote democrat for the next two hundred years and the spending of trillions of dollars on welfare, affirmative action and the breading up of black and other low-income families, the poverty rate is still at 15%.
War’s over, poverty won.
Just five questions:
1. How will this be paid for?
2. How will improvement be measured?
3. What penalties will be imposed for less than adequate improvement?
4. Will this program include random, mandatory drug testing?
5. When will this program sunset?
I’ve mentioned before that I’m a triage interviewer at a local food/clothing/etc bank.
All of the clients I interview are low income. Very, very few have a job. Some haven’t worked in years. As small percentage have never worked.
Most of the people I talk with would not like this proposed program. They are very used to sucking on taxpayer dollars. They are comfortable in the government sponsored rut they are in.
A shame but that’s reality.
Pain can be a powerful motivator.
We’ve tried the carrot - is it time for more “stick”?
1. How will this be paid for? 2. How will improvement be measured? 3. What penalties will be imposed for less than adequate improvement? 4. Will this program include random, mandatory drug testing? 5. When will this program sunset?
1. Taxpayers
2. It won't
3. None
4. Are you KIDDING?!?!?
5. Like the New Heavens and the New Earth; the sun will NEVER set! (Revelation chapter 21)
Considering how successful the Feds are in wars on domestic issues, like the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, etc. etc., I think the only way that we can Make America Great Again is to declare:
War on High Living Standards.
I estimate all of us will be rolling in cash and make Detroit and Philadelphia look like Dubai in at most 5 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.