I see many conservatives admitting...

[Raoul_Luke]

That the "war on drugs" has been an abysmal failure. And even growing numbers saying the same about the "war on terror." So where are the principled lefties who will stand up and admit the failure of the "war on poverty?"

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/TJWxZhSMl4I/AAAAAAAAJWg/yEPClygRbiA/s1600/census+2010b.png

Does that chart scream "success" to you? Of course not (to anyone in their right mind)

Instead we get all sorts of tortured logic and mindless navel gazing (see any @Arkady post on this issue) about why it has "succeeded" even though it has (basically) institutionalized poverty and created a welfare "plantation" that many African Americans can't escape. Is there no one on the left with a shed of honesty???

 

[Arkady]

That the "war on drugs" has been an abysmal failure. And even growing numbers saying the same about the "war on terror." So where are the principled lefties who will stand up and admit the failure of the "war on poverty?"

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/TJWxZhSMl4I/AAAAAAAAJWg/yEPClygRbiA/s1600/census+2010b.png

Does that chart scream "success" to you? Of course not (to anyone in their right mind)

Instead we get all sorts of tortured logic and mindless navel gazing (see any @Arkady post on this issue) about why it has "succeeded" even though it has (basically) institutionalized poverty and created a welfare "plantation" that many African Americans can't escape. Is there no one on the left with a shed of honesty???

The first decade of the war on poverty was a huge success. The poverty rate was cut by about half. But then the conservative war on the war on poverty began -- an invalidation of racial quotas and constant attacks on jobs programs and other aggressive means of remediating poverty, coupled with upper class tax cuts that made it easier for the rich to acquire larger and larger shares of national wealth, leaving less for others and helping to drive more people into poverty. So, over the next couple decades, poverty rose -- through the end of the GHW Bush years. Then we had Clinton (Americorps, upper class tax hikes, enhanced education subsidies, job training) and a return to very rapid declines in the poverty rate. Then Bush was appointed president with his failed right wing ideas of reheated Reaganomics. That started a new era of soaring poverty.

Fortunately, for a few years now poverty has been trending down again. But, given the election off Trump, I wouldn't count on that continuing.

In short, when we actually wage a war on poverty, we tend to progress well, but every few years we essentially surrender and poverty starts winning again. If we had averaged for all of the last half century the rate of poverty decline we average with Democratic presidents, the war on poverty would already be won, but tragically those eras are interspersed with catastrophic periods of Republican presidents.

As for African Americans, before the war on poverty started, well over half of them lived in poverty. Do you know what the rate is today?

 

[Barbella]

That the "war on drugs" has been an abysmal failure. And even growing numbers saying the same about the "war on terror." So where are the principled lefties who will stand up and admit the failure of the "war on poverty?"

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/TJWxZhSMl4I/AAAAAAAAJWg/yEPClygRbiA/s1600/census+2010b.png

Does that chart scream "success" to you? Of course not (to anyone in their right mind)

Instead we get all sorts of tortured logic and mindless navel gazing (see any @Arkady post on this issue) about why it has "succeeded" even though it has (basically) institutionalized poverty and created a welfare "plantation" that many African Americans can't escape. Is there no one on the left with a shed of honesty???

The war on poverty won't be won until people who can't feed kids without government assistance will stop breeding indiscriminately. Dropping out of school, getting pregnant at 15, again at 16 and every other year after that by various absentee 'fathers' is a sure recipe for poverty.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

The first decade of the war on poverty was a huge success. The poverty rate was cut by about half. But then the conservative war on the war on poverty began -- an invalidation of racial quotas and constant attacks on jobs programs and other aggressive means of remediating poverty, coupled with upper class tax cuts that made it easier for the rich to acquire larger and larger shares of national wealth, leaving less for others and helping to drive more people into poverty. So, over the next couple decades, poverty rose -- through the end of the GHW Bush years. Then we had Clinton (Americorps, upper class tax hikes, enhanced education subsidies, job training) and a return to very rapid declines in the poverty rate. Then Bush was appointed president with his failed right wing ideas of reheated Reaganomics. That started a new era of soaring poverty.

Fortunately, for a few years now poverty has been trending down again. But, given the election off Trump, I wouldn't count on that continuing.

In short, when we actually wage a war on poverty, we tend to progress well, but every few years we essentially surrender and poverty starts winning again. If we had averaged for all of the last half century the rate of poverty decline we average with Democratic presidents, the war on poverty would already be won, but tragically those eras are interspersed with catastrophic periods of Republican presidents.

As for African Americans, before the war on poverty started, well over half of them lived in poverty. Do you know what the rate is today?

BS! I've deconstructed that lame argument repeatedly. The "first decade" of the "war on poverty" was a ramping up of the welfare programs. We both know that is a juvenile take on how these things work - as if the WOP went from zero to 100 on day one. It is absurd to suggest that and you know it. As the programs took hold, the momentum of the trend toward declining poverty in America was "crowded out" by welfare spending:

http://www.heritage.org/sites/defau.../newcda2012indexdependencegovtchart5600px.jpg

The poverty rate decline ends shortly after the "war on poverty" began:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/TJWxZhSMl4I/AAAAAAAAJWg/yEPClygRbiA/s1600/census+2010b.png

Duh!

 

[Arkady]

The "first decade" of the "war on poverty" was a ramping up of the welfare programs

Yes, and as you know, the more they ramped up, the more poverty fell. From a rate of 21.0% the last year before Johnson took office, poverty fell all the way to 11.1% just a decade later!

To your point, the improvement wasn't instant -- these programs take time to work, and it's not like we woke up in 1964 with no more poverty. Still, within ten years it was clear that the war on poverty was working incredibly well. But, as I mentioned, by then we were already in a period when the Republicans had declared war on the war on poverty, with catastrophic results for the American people. By two decades later, at the end of the Reagan/Bush catastrophe, poverty stood at 15.1.

Clinton reversed course, but again, to your point, we didn't go from "zero to 100" instantly. Poverty wasn't gone as of 1993. In fact, poverty actually ROSE his first year in office. But soon it was falling rapidly, and it fell year after year until Bush again declared a war on poor people, and poverty began rising again. Obama changed course but, as you point out, these things take a while to ramp up, and so poverty actually rose in his first two years, bringing the rate back to 15.15, right where it had been back in 1993. But then the improvements started, and at last count we stood at 13.5%. That's not as good as where Clinton left us, but we're headed in the right direction again.... or at least we were when Obama was in office. We'll see whether we go back to Republican-style poverty increases under Trump.

Tell me, what do you think the poverty rate would be today if we had sustained the average rate of improvement of Democratic presidential eras over the entire period since 1963? Well, it turns out the net change under Democratic presidents was -8.7 points in 24 years. So, -0.3625 points per year. So, the poverty rate would be just 0.7% as of 2015, if we'd stuck with that average Democratic pace for the whole time. Instead, it's 13.5%, thanks to the much worse trends when we have Republican presidents.

Face it: Democratic presidents put us on the path to win the war on poverty, but we keep wasting time on Republican-led wars on poor people between those eras of success.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Yes, and as you know, the more they ramped up, the more poverty fell. From a rate of 21.0% the last year before Johnson took office, poverty fell all the way to 11.1% just a decade later!

To your point, the improvement wasn't instant -- these programs take time to work, and it's not like we woke up in 1964 with no more poverty. Still, within ten years it was clear that the war on poverty was working incredibly well. But, as I mentioned, by then we were already in a period when the Republicans had declared war on the war on poverty, with catastrophic results for the American people. By two decades later, at the end of the Reagan/Bush catastrophe, poverty stood at 15.1.

Clinton reversed course, but again, to your point, we didn't go from "zero to 100" instantly. Poverty wasn't gone as of 1993. In fact, poverty actually ROSE his first year in office. But soon it was falling rapidly, and it fell year after year until Bush again declared a war on poor people, and poverty began rising again. Obama changed course but, as you point out, these things take a while to ramp up, and so poverty actually rose in his first two years, bringing the rate back to 15.15, right where it had been back in 1993. But then the improvements started, and at last count we stood at 13.5%. That's not as good as where Clinton left us, but we're headed in the right direction again.... or at least we were when Obama was in office. We'll see whether we go back to Republican-style poverty increases under Trump.

Tell me, what do you think the poverty rate would be today if we had sustained the average rate of improvement of Democratic presidential eras over the entire period since 1963? Well, it turns out the net change under Democratic presidents was -8.7 points in 24 years. So, -0.3625 points per year. So, the poverty rate would be just 0.7% as of 2015, if we'd stuck with that average Democratic pace for the whole time. Instead, it's 13.5%, thanks to the much worse trends when we have Republican presidents.

Face it: Democratic presidents put us on the path to win the war on poverty, but we keep wasting time on Republican-led wars on poor people between those eras of success.

No, as a matter of fact, it was "clear" that the decline in poverty that had been occurring since WWII (and FDR's Great Depression) was arrested soon after the war on poverty was implemented.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/TJWxZhSMl4I/AAAAAAAAJWg/yEPClygRbiA/s1600/census+2010b.png

That picture says all we need to know about the mendacity of your assertions on this matter.

The decline prior to 1965 was actually more dramatic than the (lessening) slope of the decline after the "Great Society" welfare programs passed. And, as anyone who is being honest knows, as the programs became established during the decade you claim "proved" that the WOP was "working incredibly well," even that slackening decline stabilized and the long, post-war trend of poverty abatement ended. It's quite puzzling how you think your argument here has merit. It's one of the most specious of your (many) specious lines of communist propaganda...

 

[connieb]

That the "war on drugs" has been an abysmal failure. And even growing numbers saying the same about the "war on terror." So where are the principled lefties who will stand up and admit the failure of the "war on poverty?"

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/TJWxZhSMl4I/AAAAAAAAJWg/yEPClygRbiA/s1600/census+2010b.png

Does that chart scream "success" to you? Of course not (to anyone in their right mind)

Instead we get all sorts of tortured logic and mindless navel gazing (see any @Arkady post on this issue) about why it has "succeeded" even though it has (basically) institutionalized poverty and created a welfare "plantation" that many African Americans can't escape. Is there no one on the left with a shed of honesty???

The ridiculousness of those claiming a "success" claim it by saying, well, there were all these poor people, then we gave them stuff and they are no no longer poor. Um.. well duh... You are right, when you give someone housing, give them food, and an assortment of other benefits, guess what they no longer live like they are in poverty. There is a shocker.

The reality is - that little has been done and little improvement has come in the things that MAKE people be in poverty - without the interventions.

What are those changes... not having children out of wedlock. Out of wedlock births is the biggest indicator that one will live in poverty. But, not only have we not made gains in this, we have actually SLID backwards as there is no longer any social stigma attached with indiscriminate breeding.
Education - those at the lowest income levels STILL leave school way too early. Except - unlike in generations past where they would leave school to work for the family - they now leave school and don't work at anything. They just leave.. which of course results in crime and criminal records - further preventing them from ever getting any meaningful employment.
Drugs/ addiction issues. Drugs are part of the shifting dynamic of where poverty is located these days. But, the reality is that if you have an addiction - your family will likely live in poverty. No reputable employers want to hire a person who can't pass a drug test or have a history of being fired for drug/ addiction issues.

Those are things though that require the PERSON to be fixed. They have to be - a better person. They have to not sleep around. They have to make good decisions on a mate. They must not abuse substances. They must stay in school.

But, when people can live like animals, screwing whoever they want, hanging around with no purpose, consuming whatever they want - there is little incentive for them to behave like actual humans. And, to speak of their bad behavior as the root cause to them of their misery - is verbotten by the left.

In order to get money for anything these people should be required to attend counseling on everything from etiquette, to personal finance, to dealing with addiction to personal habits, cleanliness, and sexual responsibility and to show improvement to continue to get anything. But, the left would never require such things, so instead, the "war on poverty", that may have initially provided some additional leg up to people right on the cusp has become an enabler of bad behavior.

connie

 

[Deleted member 21794]

That the "war on drugs" has been an abysmal failure. And even growing numbers saying the same about the "war on terror." So where are the principled lefties who will stand up and admit the failure of the "war on poverty?"

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/TJWxZhSMl4I/AAAAAAAAJWg/yEPClygRbiA/s1600/census+2010b.png

Does that chart scream "success" to you? Of course not (to anyone in their right mind)

Instead we get all sorts of tortured logic and mindless navel gazing (see any @Arkady post on this issue) about why it has "succeeded" even though it has (basically) institutionalized poverty and created a welfare "plantation" that many African Americans can't escape. Is there no one on the left with a shed of honesty???

The war on poverty is yet another government scam. Leftists LOVE that it we have taken blacks from slavery to enslavement via the war on poverty. Gotta keep them n1ggers dependent on government and voting Democrat.

As @Arkady knows, the poverty rate was already in free fall before his beloved war on poverty.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

The ridiculousness of those claiming a "success" claim it by saying, well, there were all these poor people, then we gave them stuff and they are no no longer poor. Um.. well duh... You are right, when you give someone housing, give them food, and an assortment of other benefits, guess what they no longer live like they are in poverty. There is a shocker.

The reality is - that little has been done and little improvement has come in the things that MAKE people be in poverty - without the interventions.

What are those changes... not having children out of wedlock. Out of wedlock births is the biggest indicator that one will live in poverty. But, not only have we not made gains in this, we have actually SLID backwards as there is no longer any social stigma attached with indiscriminate breeding.
Education - those at the lowest income levels STILL leave school way too early. Except - unlike in generations past where they would leave school to work for the family - they now leave school and don't work at anything. They just leave.. which of course results in crime and criminal records - further preventing them from ever getting any meaningful employment.
Drugs/ addiction issues. Drugs are part of the shifting dynamic of where poverty is located these days. But, the reality is that if you have an addiction - your family will likely live in poverty. No reputable employers want to hire a person who can't pass a drug test or have a history of being fired for drug/ addiction issues.

Those are things though that require the PERSON to be fixed. They have to be - a better person. They have to not sleep around. They have to make good decisions on a mate. They must not abuse substances. They must stay in school.

But, when people can live like animals, screwing whoever they want, hanging around with no purpose, consuming whatever they want - there is little incentive for them to behave like actual humans. And, to speak of their bad behavior as the root cause to them of their misery - is verbotten by the left.

In order to get money for anything these people should be required to attend counseling on everything from etiquette, to personal finance, to dealing with addiction to personal habits, cleanliness, and sexual responsibility and to show improvement to continue to get anything. But, the left would never require such things, so instead, the "war on poverty", that may have initially provided some additional leg up to people right on the cusp has become an enabler of bad behavior.

connie

The whole idea of the war on poverty was to eliminate it. Instead it institutionalized it by rewarding those who produce nothing. So they proliferate. Who couldn't see that coming???

 

[connieb]

The whole idea of the war on poverty was to eliminate it. Instead it institutionalized it by rewarding those who produce nothing. So they proliferate. Who couldn't see that coming???

Apparently anyone who has never fed a stray cat.