Perfectson
Banned
Catchy headline and you're hooked...it hasn't been an utter failure but here why it's not reducing the poverty rates....
Despite this "failure" to reduce poverty - many of you support socialism or want more socialist programs that emulate and continue failed legislation.
First lets look in summary at the war on poverty
1) Early Education Program
2) Expanded funding for secondary educatin
3) Job training and work opportunity programs
4) Creation of Medicare and Medicaid
does any of the above sound familiar
1964: Unconditional War on Poverty; 2018: Unconditional War on the Poor (I'm listing this to ensure this isn't some partisan war - as I agree with man of the points in the article regarding Trump's poor legislation on tax cuts for the rich and trickle down economics; however, she also failed to address the actual poverty rates correctly, which I show below).
this was the first real sweeping progressive package (outside of the new deal which was key for the depression) that was put in place to combat poverty.
I have stated many times that these social programs infact keep people in the safety net and removes any incentives to get out of said net. Socialism without nationalism is doomed to fail and even then requires some capitalism in order to incent and motive the economy. This is why China was a huge failure until the last 30 years when they moved to a more capitalistic society (even now they statistically have less people as % in poverty).
I'm using the graph here because it shows the drastic drop in poverty prior to the war on poverty (while the start date assume 1967 as I assume they gave it 3 years of the law being passed to be fully progressing)
Now the poverty rate is a bit flawed, so the war on poverty isn't an utter disaster - it does create the applicable safety nets but people have not been inclined to get out of those nets for various reasons.
I also contend programs such as medicare and social security actually does not incentivize citizens to save during their working years, while higher taxes, still creates a stain on consumer spend (basically you are loaning government your retirement fund, instead of funding it yourself) - this is why economists advocate for the creations of the 401k and IRA accounts to combat this and while these are growing still many are burden by the taxes they have to pay into the two programs. And Im not advocating for the removal of safe and sane programs that are there to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves; however, a ridiculous high tax rate and removal of personal incentive is a disasterous combination.
Despite this "failure" to reduce poverty - many of you support socialism or want more socialist programs that emulate and continue failed legislation.
First lets look in summary at the war on poverty
1) Early Education Program
2) Expanded funding for secondary educatin
3) Job training and work opportunity programs
4) Creation of Medicare and Medicaid
does any of the above sound familiar
1964: Unconditional War on Poverty; 2018: Unconditional War on the Poor (I'm listing this to ensure this isn't some partisan war - as I agree with man of the points in the article regarding Trump's poor legislation on tax cuts for the rich and trickle down economics; however, she also failed to address the actual poverty rates correctly, which I show below).
this was the first real sweeping progressive package (outside of the new deal which was key for the depression) that was put in place to combat poverty.
I have stated many times that these social programs infact keep people in the safety net and removes any incentives to get out of said net. Socialism without nationalism is doomed to fail and even then requires some capitalism in order to incent and motive the economy. This is why China was a huge failure until the last 30 years when they moved to a more capitalistic society (even now they statistically have less people as % in poverty).
I'm using the graph here because it shows the drastic drop in poverty prior to the war on poverty (while the start date assume 1967 as I assume they gave it 3 years of the law being passed to be fully progressing)
Now the poverty rate is a bit flawed, so the war on poverty isn't an utter disaster - it does create the applicable safety nets but people have not been inclined to get out of those nets for various reasons.
I also contend programs such as medicare and social security actually does not incentivize citizens to save during their working years, while higher taxes, still creates a stain on consumer spend (basically you are loaning government your retirement fund, instead of funding it yourself) - this is why economists advocate for the creations of the 401k and IRA accounts to combat this and while these are growing still many are burden by the taxes they have to pay into the two programs. And Im not advocating for the removal of safe and sane programs that are there to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves; however, a ridiculous high tax rate and removal of personal incentive is a disasterous combination.
