Billions of dollars spent on poverty, yet poverty levels unaffected

LBJ declared the "War on Poverty" and poverty won.

When will the loony left realize that fighting poverty is a losing battle and a waste of my money?

Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected

 

The simple fact is this: in a free society, people will choose to live a certain lifestyle. Oh sure, they'll blame their boss, "Big Oil", the rich, and whomever and whatever else they can for their choices. But people in a free country like the United States live a lifestyle that is an accumulation of all their decisions, habits, choices, work ethic, etc. Taking money from one group to give to these people is a failure, as your data shows. Only a liberal would be insane enough to think we can and should keep funding these silly programs and welfare subsidies. At the very least, they should be dramatically slashed, and preferably gotten rid of altogether.

 

I believe that each of us has a level of accountability to ourselves. I know from personal experience that you can rise above poverty, but...I also know what it takes to do so and to tell people that all it takes is hard work is an outright lie and a bit patronizing.

It takes hard work and brains. Hard work and talent. Hard work and help. Hard work and beauty.

The difference between the beautiful girl who works at the Mall and the one who's making millions on the runway is hard work, determination, and self-marketing.

The difference between the intelligent guy selling drugs without being caught on the streets and the intelligent guy working at Apple or Microsoft is hard work, determination, and a great education.

The difference between the talented kid playing hoops on his street and the guy playing for the NBA is hard work and determination.

I don't believe that everyone who is poor simply did not work hard enough, nor do I believe that every who is poor worked/works hard. Nor do I believe for one second that everyone who is rich works hard or came by the money honestly.

I would love to have a discussion about poverty and what to do about it, but not if we're going to continue to be dishonest as to the causes.

 

I think this bit is key. Sometimes welfare actually assist people in making the same mistakes that are keeping them down in the first place. For example, a woman who makes the mistake of getting impregnated at an early age by a man who has no intentions of doing his part, (time and time again) wouldn't be able to do so without food stamps and housing. So the consequences of her poor decisions are dramatically lessened, thereby decreasing her need to be more responsible.

 

http://johnnywhitfield.com/2011/03/the-wasteful-war-on-poverty/

Counting what the Federal, State and Local Governments have spent the total is coincidentally the same as our National Debt. I get a kick out of those saying our debt has been exclusively caused from the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars....

 

BINGO. Pain can be a wonderful motivator. Preventing people from feeling the pain of their poor decisions only dooms them to repeat those same mistakes.

 

I agree with this, I do. The problem is that we also make the assumption that all poor are just average people who need to be motivated and if they would just "get off their asses and work" things would be great for them.

Well, okay...but...as George Carlin once said: think how stupid the average person is and then realize that half the population is dumber than that.

It's horrible to say, but...not everyone is even of average intelligence. If you are of average intelligence and have a rich father you can be President someday. If you are of average intelligence and a poor father and you're looking at life in retail.

Now, imagine if you are below average intelligence and poor.

 

The collectivist left's fraudulent "war on poverty" is an insincere vote harvesting scheme...nothing more.

 

LBJ's phoney war on poverty (which clearly didn't and never will work) wastes billions each year. Eliminating this alphabet-soup of programs would go a long way toward balancing the budget.

 

Perhaps from their political overlords, but the liberals on the ground do have good intentions towards their neighbors. I cannot always say the same in reverse.

 

I like what the Grameen Bank does they help the poor with microloans and support to work themselves out of desperate poverty to at least a better place. For example in Bangledesh they give beggars $25 loans, they buy goods to sell candy and small things and make money paying the loans off (98% of the time) and then can take out bigger loans. Some are now shop owners or at least work up to a better place. Funny they make more money doing this to loan out to more people. The government does its part supporting the system alot to.

What is wrong with that kind of positive help?

 

It would never work in the US. All their money would go to getting government permits.

 

I've read...and firmly believe... right wingers are far more charitable than progressive lefties....who, by all accounts, consider their "charitable contribution to society" a fat pensioned, government union represented "social worker" job.

 

Mother Theresa said to not give the poor "charity" but to give the poor your love. There is a difference. Charitable donations are tax deductible and encourage people to donate money. I'm sure a lot of conservatives are charitable people, some I'm sure do it out of love, some out of incentives.

What I notice in the dialog here, however, is that the love of the poor is missing. There is a great deal of contempt for the poor that practically oozes out of people's posts. Therefore, what is given in most cases is charity, but not love. Love makes the difference in someone getting out of poverty and wallowing in it.

 

It certainly is folly to think that we can take money from those who have it and give it all to poor people and eliminate poverty as a result. People must work to support themselves.

 

She loved them so much that she let them suffer and die, believing that that suffering brought them closer to God.

 

Yes, of course. You are so right. She never gave them rice or grain or medication or...

 

No she didn't.

She "gave them rice or grain or medication" that was DONATED by someone else.

It wasn't her "rice or grain or medication."

There's a big difference in giving someone something of yours or someone else's.

 

That's right, she didn't give up having a husband or kids to care for the poor. She didn't hold them or comfort them. Never spoke to them. Never gave her life and existence over to service.

People criticize her actions or decisions from the comfort of their living rooms. Spend a month volunteering in a hot as hell country with disease and hunger staring at you before you criticize someone willing to do it every day.

 

I think you guys are failing to appreciate that the purpose of those programs was not to eliminate poverty but rather to ensure those under the poverty threashold have dwelling, with a couch, a TV, and plenty of chips and beer to consume while watching that TV from that couch.

Given those objectives, these programs have been and continue to be successful thanks to your money. Your claims that they aren't succesfull are not effective claims given that anyone going to the grocery store can determine that those on food stamps have a goodly number of bags of chips in their cart and brief conversation could confirm the presence of watching TV, thus proving the programs effectiveness. I'm sure there are studies to back up those casual observations.

If you don't like that description of success, any complaints you have would need to address that the vast majority of people on welfare have children held hostage and you need to address that because most voters aren't going to support letting just letting those kids starve or live under a bridge, and taking them from their parents and putting them into "the system" is even MORE expensive, and probably just as dysfunctional given how things currently work with foster care and group homes.

 

The purpose of those programs was to provide people with temporary support while they received an education, learned a trade, or until they found a new job. The fact that it is not the case is in the way that programs were written without measures of success.

 

You don't get rid of poverty by stealing money from one group and feeding it to another. You get rid of poverty by letting the free market do its work, as it has done in the past.

 

If you pay people to sit on their ass, they sit on their ass, and you have purchased their support (vote).

If you pay people to have kids out of wedlock .... you get a two-fer, and then some.

If you pay people to be liberals, you get a society of lard-ass idiots who still want more free stuff.

 

I would agree with this, but, unfortunately, there is no "free market" that is an illusion. Everything has been cultivated, regulated, and navigated in such a way as to reward specific corporate entities and deny privilege to others.