yep. and, isnt the war on poverty equally a war on the rich (in the cause for a more even wealth distribution)? so, to put this into perspective, the powers that be who make these policies are calling war on themselves! do you think this is a publicity stunt to win more votes, or a genuine altruistic concern? when bush decided to flood new-orleans by ignoring the warnings given to him of the hurricane, and also not funding the badly needed flood protection facilities, was he in fact subconsciously hoping the problem of american poverty would be washed out to sea and forgotten? of course poverty goes way beyond the shores of the usa. but does the modern world (usa + europe) really give a damn about it? what has been done since all the publicity, concerts, arm bands and other awareness campaigns, lobbying of global political summits etc. our governments are well aware of the issue but do nothing than give lip service to the issue. their behavior in fact causes poverty buy destroying countries infrastructure in the war on terror, and trade embargoes, little debt relief etc.
one hand washes the other..... americas answer to the war on drugs.... spread columbia with agents that kill the coca plant. this only kills the coca plant (actually a weed) for about 6 months. it soon grows back. the side effects though is that the spray damages the soil so other crops will not grow for a number of years. this leaves the farmers with no other opportunity other than to keep growing coca. BUT they are out of pocket for the 6 months it takes the crop to grow back - thus INCREASING their POVERTY and lowering their probability to afford the seeds and equipment to grow other cash crops. and what does the american government threaten the columbian government if they refuse to allow them to spray the coca crop? they impose economic sanctions that will of course increase POVERTY. so the poor columbians are fucked due to the stupidity of the government. its only fair to point out that this practice has been carried out by both democrat and republicans. i cant believe the powers that decide and engineer these policies are so stupid to not be aware of these circumstances. therefore, clearly they actually WANT coca production to continue AND for columbia to remain poor and under their thumb.
Why would you choose your starting date as 1959 when the War wasn't declared until 1964, by which time the rate was already falling? Is just the standard BS - "public education is working" - we've come to expect from you, or is there something more to it? According to wiki: The most significant decreases have been in under 18 year olds and over 65 year olds. Under 18s could be explained - just off the top of my head - by looking at birth rates pre and post baby boom. Less mouths to feed per family makes it easier to feed them. Over 65s? I'm not sure. But for 18-65 year olds the rate seems essentially unchanged, 10.5%in '66 compared to 10.1%. Obviously that's a questionable "success". Let's be serious, though. Obviously the poverty warriors were most keen to see an improvement in the conditions of blacks. But I doubt even dddooo could spin that one into a success story.
Like the war in Iraq, "success" in the war on poverty cannot be defined in a vacuum. The pertinent question is was whatever success that was achieved worth the cost? Considering the untold billions squandered on government programs, it's hard to say the answer is an unqualified yes. Also, there is a legitimate argument that the myriad federal programs increased dependency and encouraged counterproductive lifestyles. I suppose the differnce in the two wars--on poverty and on drugs--is that virtually everyone agrees that eradicating poverty is a worthy goal. We just differ on the best way of accomplishing it. With drugs, there are many who see no reason for a war at all, and plenty of others who feel the war, such as it is, should be directed at changing behavior among users and potential users.
What is the war on poverty? I did not know there was another war going on. Quote from AAAintheBeltway: Two epic undertakings, one started by conservatives, one by liberals, both designed to appeal to their hard core faithful. Both hideously expensive, both put extreme stress on our constitutional system and both have had disastrous unintended consequences. Which was the bigger failure? And why do we continue to pursue them?
there is no war on drugs, our government lets it in and makes billions of money on drugs, and funnels the money into secret ops.......war on poverty, ummmmm the powers that be also want there to be 2 classes, the elite and the poor, so the war on the middle class is whats really going on sponsored by george bush and the rest of the elite scum..........
Both the war on poverty and drugs has 'justified' some of the most invasive expansions of federal power and wealth consolidation efforts this century has seen. Like acronym said. These altruistic social crusades are just theatre to distract citizens from the real enemy - our Bill of Rights and an American middle class with the wealth to defend it. Failure? Depends who you ask. Both parties follow the same agenda - grow Government while restricting liberty. The war on drugs, poverty and terrorism handily accomplish just that. If you want my opinion. Poverty could be eradicated by the abolishment of our fiat fractional reserve banking system; which is nothing more than the mother of all ponzi schemes designed to enrich the few at the expense of the many. Returning to the gold standard would enable citizens to toil less and reap more. That harbors untold social benefit right there. Second. Return to bare bones Government. No more crushing 50%+ tax rates that perpetually chain us to our machines. No. 15% flat consumption tax across the board. Of course, neither of those solutions will see the light of day because we live in a plutocracy, not a democratic republic.
The war on poverty has destroyed the black familly (i.e. encouraging children out of wedlock). That combined with the war on drugs have resulted in an explosion of the size of the prison system......pitiful fan27
Actually, the premise is a good idea. Even better. Put Americas intellectual capital and cash to use: genetically engineer a pathogen that attacks and kills only cocoa plants. And while we're at it, poppy plants too. This is totally within the realm of scientific feasibility and would likely cost less than 1 billion. Will it ever happen? Of course not! Why? Because it would WORK. And totally undermine the Governments rationale for bilking the public out of BILLIONS.