DEMOCRATS' NEW WAR

[The Reaper]

Hmm.

More money thrown at the $11 trillion we have spent since 1964 with little change in poverty rates, or a return to family values with two married, at least one employed, opposite sex parents per household with children?

TR

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07212007...nda_chavez.htm

DEMOCRATS' NEW WAR
By LINDA CHAVEZ
July 21, 2007 -- BARACK Obama and John Edwards want to get us out of one war and into another. The two Democrats vying for their party's presidential nomination want to end the war in Iraq and spend at least some of the savings on a new war on poverty.

This week, Edwards finished an eight-state tour reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy's famous visit to poor Appalachian communities during his bid for the presidency in 1968, while Obama launched his crusade in Anacostia, a District of Columbia neighborhood that has historically been one of Washington's poorest.

Ending poverty is certainly a noble goal - but it appears neither Obama nor Edwards has a clue about how to go about it. Both want more government spending, as if adding a few billion more to the $11 trillion that has been spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson first initiated the War on Poverty in 1964 would finally produce the desired results..

Poverty among families has remained amazingly constant over the last 40 years. In 2005, the percentage of all families who lived below the government-defined poverty level was 9.9 percent; in 1964, 15 percent of families lived below the poverty line, but the rate dropped to 10 percent by 1968 and has remained at roughly that level, with minor fluctuations, ever since.

In a nation as rich as ours, argue Obama and Edwards, one-in-ten American families living in poverty is simply unacceptable. I agree, but the numbers reveal a lot more complexity than either man is willing to acknowledge.

First, many of those living below poverty today are new immigrants, both legal and illegal. They are newcomers who lack the education and skills to attain a middle class life, at least initially. The poverty rate for non-citizens, 20 percent, is twice the national average, but it has declined substantially since 1993, when it was almost 30 percent; this despite the fact that there are many more immigrants here now, including substantially more illegal aliens.

Second, neither Obama nor Edwards addresses the issue of family breakdown and its relationship to poverty. The poor are disproportionately made up of women and their children. Poverty rates for families headed by a single white woman with children under 18 were 25.3 percent in 2005; for similarly constituted black families, the rate was a shocking 42 percent. But for married couple families, the comparable rate for whites was just 6.1 percent, and for black families it was only 8.3 percent.

So why aren't Obama and Edwards talking more about marriage as an antidote to poverty? From all accounts, both men have wonderful, even inspirational, marriages of their own. But many Democrats are worried they might not seem inclusive or might even be viewed as intolerant if they talk up marriage.

It's a lot easier to offer to increase government spending. My suspicion is, however, that most Americans understand that the War on Poverty won't be won by throwing their tax dollars behind more failed programs.

[nmap]

The problem may lie in the definition. Being "below the poverty line" doesn't tell us much, since the poverty line changes.

Thus, in a hypothetical land where everyone drives a Benz, those with a mere Cadillac might be regarded as impoverished. I suspect that problem exists in the current situation.

There is a darker view. Machiavelli tells us "The wise prince makes the people come to him for every little thing." If the Democrats seek control, what better way to accomplish it than to establish long-term dependence - as they have, do, and propose to continue doing.

[Monsoon65]

And they bitch about Iraq? Talk about backing a losing horse; I thought that Johnson was suppose to fix this with his "Great Society"

The Dems have been fighting the "War on Poverty" for over 40+ years and not making much headway. I guess their handouts and government aid packages just aren't doing the trick.

[incommin]

You make $$$ when you have a skill that you can market or if someone is willing to pay you $$$ to use your skill to make them $$$$. If you are poorly educated and lack a marketable skill life is going to suck. At to that the fact that about one quarter to one third of a given population will do just enough to get by or even be willing to sit on their butts and let someone else provide for them.

More $$$ from DC will fix none of that! However it is the "Lefts" wish to make us all equal in every way...... which will never happen.

Jim

[Achilles]

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

[Peregrino]

But isn't everyone (especially the proletariat) entitled to an "above average" standard of living? It ought to be possible if the Dems redistribute enough income from the bourgeoisie. At least that's what I think I've heard them saying for the last 40 years. Peregrino

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

But isn't everyone (especially the proletariat) entitled to an "above average" standard of living? It ought to be possible if the Dems redistribute enough income from the bourgeoisie. At least that's what I think I've heard them saying for the last 40 years. Peregrino

There is almost no one living in the US who is not well above the global poverty index line.

Poor people here are fat, in nice waterproof homes with indoor plumbing, electricity, cable TV, a car, more food than they need, and money for cigarettes, booze and drugs.

This would make you wealthy in more than half the countries on the planet.

TR

[CRad]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

This would make you wealthy in more than half the countries on the planet.

TR

awww yes, but this is America and we tend to see things a little differently than half the countries on the planet. We don't see being fed and warm as the end of it. We want quality of life factored into the equation.

I don't see that poverty is something the government can "spend" you out of but, an education? Quickest way out of being "poor" that I can think of is to get smarter and put those smarts to good use.

I wouldn't be opposed to a hand up when it comes to college funds for the poverty-striken.

I'll change it to secondary education then. Regardless, being better educated is the key to less poverty and a mindset that enjoys the quality of life one is able to provide via the fruits of their own rather vice one provided by the government. imo.

[The Reaper]

Quality of life is frequently in the head of the individual, and many are delusional with false expectations.

I think too many people go to college here already, and many for the wrong reasons.

An English Lit degree or basketball scholarship is not necessarily a ticket to the good life. If my kids wanted to go to vocational ed to learn plumbing or welding, I would be fine with that, as long as they were happy.

Far too many people in the US are trapped in a cycle of being pregnant too young without committed relationships, and seeing more kids as more money. A culture that makes fun of kids for being smart or studying hard is not going to do well or survive for long.

IMHO, the key is to realize your potential, be productive in something that you enjoy, and to realize that no matter what the marketing geeks tell you, happiness is not found in bling or owning more than the neighbors.

TR

[CRad]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

IMHO, the key is to realize your potential, be productive in something that you enjoy, and to realize that no matter what the marketing geeks tell you, happiness is not found in bling or owning more than the neighbors.

TR

I understand what you are saying and agree with it. My youngest told me the other day that the saying about the "best things in life being free" was a lie.

I told him if that was true then he'd be able to put a price tag on Dad's love and on his dog's devotion. When he can tell me the cost to himself for those two things then he can argue on whether the best things are free.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I think too many people go to college here already, and many for the wrong reasons.

An English Lit degree or basketball scholarship is not necessarily a ticket to the good life. If my kids wanted to go to vocational ed to learn plumbing or welding, I would be fine with that, as long as they were happy.

I strongly agree, TR. I really wish more middle and high schools would bring 'shop' back into their curriculum. Teach kids that don't have a desire to pursue more esoteric academics the skills they can use to get a steady, decent paying job.

[Monsoon65]

Originally Posted by Razor

I strongly agree, TR. I really wish more middle and high schools would bring 'shop' back into their curriculum. Teach kids that don't have a desire to pursue more esoteric academics the skills they can use to get a steady, decent paying job.

I agree. I know a lot of people with degrees that are doing some crappy job, yet a kid that majored in "shop" and went to vo-tech to learn plumping is making a nice paycheck!

How many college grads are asking, "Do you want fries with that?"

I also think that part of the problem here in this country lies with the fact that each subsequent generation had one thought in mind. This being that they didn't want their children to endure the hardships that they went through in their generation as children.

For example:

I once talked about this to my Lieutenant. He was raised in a poor part of Alabama during the late 40's-60's (early). He then went into the Marines and was with the first Marine division to land in Vietnam in 1964. He remembers vividly about having to do allot of work around the shack before going to school and when he got home. Needless to say he never got enough sleep and his grades reflected as such. I then asked him if all that work was such a bad thing. His response was "No, but I was intent on not putting my children through what I had went through!" After he had time to think about what I had said he came back and agreed that we parents are at fault for wanting a much better childhood than we had. Doing this in turn leads are children to: laziness, apathy, selfishness, and not much respect for elders or government.

One other thing. In the Bible Jesus states a few times in the New Testament that there is ALWAYS going to be the rich and the poor on this planet until the end of time.

So the Democrats want to try and end all of this poverty. To me this sounds like allot more money will be going towards Welfare.

Just an observation on my part and my $.02.

[DanUCSB]

Simple and sad.

We live in the most blessed nation in the history of the world. A nation where among the greatest of the public health concerns for the poorest of our poor is the affliction of eating too much food.

I'm not yet cynical enough to say that every Democrat politician is using the largesse spent on the "War on Poverty" as a form of patronage to ensure their own job security, but the signs don't look terribly encouraging.

As an earlier poster pointed out, if there's to be any program worth a damn in reducing real poverty, it needs to have targeted ways to meet a well-defined goal; simply going after "poverty" makes a fine soundbite but is doomed to failure: there will always be people better off than others, making those others "poor" by definition.

In many, many nations of the world, poverty is measured by how many men, women, and children die in the dirt from malnutrition and disease. In our nation, poverty seems to be measured by how many times a year you buy $150 athletic shoes, if you have a cable television in every room of your house or just a couple, and how many times per day you choose to eat at a restaurant rather than your kitchen.