Posted on 09/01/2016 5:18:59 AM PDT by expat_panama
Don't expect a second War on Poverty, regardless of who wins the election.
Picking up where Lyndon Johnson left off in the 1960s would seem a logical response to the campaign's relentless criticism of economic inequality. But appearances are deceiving. Most proposals to reduce inequality -- conspicuously from Hillary Clinton -- are aimed at the middle class. Spillovers for the very poor would be mostly incidental.
These proposals include: raising Social Security payments; increasing subsidies for early childhood care; reducing -- or eliminating -- college tuition at state colleges and universities; boosting the minimum wage. For his part, Donald Trump has pledged not to trim Social Security benefits and to cut taxes across the board. That automatically favors the rich and middle class because they pay most of the taxes.
There are two powerful reasons for slighting the poor.
First, the poor are not where the votes are...
...second reason is less recognized: There's no consensus in public opinion for launching a second War on Poverty...
...here's the contradiction: Government isn't judged up to the job. Both surveys asked whether government knew enough to eliminate poverty even if it could "spend whatever is necessary." In 1985, 70% said "no." In 2016, the negative response was 73%.
What emerges is an ambiguous consensus. Government can and should help, but it can do only so much. The poor themselves -- along with their families, churches and charities -- must play the starring role. None of this constitutes a powerful mandate for a vast new anti-poverty program. We know more now than we did in the 1960s. We are no longer so optimistic and confident of success. To many Americans, eliminating poverty has become a mission impossible.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
It worked in Lake Woebegone; why can’t it work in the rest of thew country?
It’s no WONDER our health system is so screwed up; when half of our doctors graduate with below average grades!!!
There's a famous line: "America is the only country in the world where the poor are fat".
The definition of "poverty" is continually shifting, and the effective political definition will always be "the standard of living of the bottom 10%", no matter how good it is compared to the standard of living of the middle class of decades prior.
There are people who are temporarily having bad times, there are the physically disabled, and then there are the people who just keep making bad decisions. The real issue regarding addressing poverty, is dealing with the last category.
IMHO, there will remain those in poverty, not because of any lack of work on their behalf, nor availability of resources, but simply because in God’s Plan, faith is more important than perfect environment.
It should be noted that each time in Scripture where Lucifer/Satan is recorded as falling, has been from a perfect environment.
The below average doctors don’t design the computer systems. The marketing departments of systems integrators like Accenture design the technology.
When I’ve attended their recruiting seminars, they very bluntly state that they don’t want people who create good solutions or solve problems. They want people who create a steady stream of problems that generate a steady stream of new projects.
The first 90% of the software budget creates the first 90% of the program(s).
The other 90% of the budget finishes the last 10% of the software.
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.