Posted 02 April 2007 - 08:41 AM
for a fine description of *War on Poverty* try Encyclopedia of the American History- War on poverty..
you will find this program in many ways changed the policy of a good many programs that were in effect and added several additional programs. google, war on poverty cost, and you will see figures from 6 to 9 trillion dollars. social security cost have risen proportionately as this War, changed the nature and intent of the SS program itself. i do not think these cost are related to the exact debt, but they have certainly maintained the same trend.
to the thread itself; constitutionally, No US President has the authority to obtain funds for any purpose, write a check or alter where funds are spent.
the idea Clinton did this or that Bush did that are founded of biased political conception of what a president is capable of. the appropriate approach would have to include the Congress of 64-66 or 68 and Johnson did something. you will find Congress was under Democrat control (in this case) from Johnson to the second Congress of Clinton. much of what is being said was or given credit for are very complex, give and takes by the two branches of government that are involved.
as for world economies and debt, tax increases and so on, my GUESS is you will find similar social programs are involved. in most countries to begin with, there is very little to no military expense, certainly on a comparative US expense. if you like google World National Debt and find anything i have mentioned.
as for a comparison of Presidents over time, i disagree that they cannot be for changes in policy. the people, that achieve the post, for the most part have been dedicated, loyal and honorable people. Washington to Bush II, have in each their own way honored the office, admittedly from the time they enter the oval office. all well read historians and had the ability to pick people that presented their views. their is not ONE, i could find reasons to think were mis-lead or wrong on some issues. however each seemed to lead and represent their party and my people in times they were chosen to do so...
lets make another thing quite clear. opening up opportunities to woman, later to other minority groups has made the US all it is today. i credit much of this to the current standard of livings enjoyed by our citizens today. these things happened well before WOP. i will argue the WOP was and continues to be a disaster, ill advise and certainly unwarranted set of programs to deny dignity which had been earned by those intended to help. expectation w/o efforts are not conducive to responsibility or personal achievement, which are part, if not the entire human and certainly American spirit.
Posted 02 April 2007 - 09:37 AM
You should note though that the "denial of dignity" argument is equally effective in arguing against *any* charity being given out from any source whether it is governmental or private...I consider it specious as it completely denies the downside cost in both monetary and "dignity" terms of the cruelty of poverty. Its justifiable if you are a pure Social Darwinist of course, but its equivalent to saying "compassion is a weakness and should be stamped out at all costs." Not very "Christian" in my book.
i will argue the WOP was and continues to be a disaster, ill advise and certainly unwarranted set of programs to deny dignity which had been earned by those intended to help. expectation w/o efforts are not conducive to responsibility or personal achievement, which are part, if not the entire human and certainly American spirit.
Posted 02 April 2007 - 11:08 AM
we are for whatever reason, endowed with wealth, opportunity and encouragement form many angles, toward the concept we can do anything we desire in our lifetime. then we have an entity, government welfare, that tells us simultaneous that if we drive an old car, live in public housing have a certain number of kids, don't marry or attempt to achieve that we will take care of you. someplace in the mix i have to consider the lost dignity to accept or participate in the idea. many folks i have know, generally women would prefer to work, or do what most do but can't justify the efforts. this tells me something, maybe not dignity, has been lost in my version of the American dream.
compassion, then may be a weakness in the sense to feel less guilty of what government can do to control so many, is overlooked for the sake of involvement or being accused of immoral or the lack of some emotion. in reality i shouldn't care. many people have played away their life w/o being responsible for anything, other than keeping the proper appearance for the weekly trip to a home by some case worker. this worker gone, the man of the house pops in for lunch and life goes on, the party starting at 8 or so each night.
it was compassion that gave 9-11 victims, or those that lost real loved one a million or so dollars and no telling what all else. the fact is however, on that same day another 6000 people died in the US, most unexpectedly and each is a story with some to large degrees of tragedy. i might point out to the folks involved in the 6000 for that day or those of the 6000 on any other day felt no less griefe than does any one regardless of cause. if i or you feel the million dollars was owed or due (even for the reasons done), are we then showing a lack of compassion for the rest, or are we simply ignoring the issue.
Posted 02 April 2007 - 11:58 AM
Its a common tactic when attacking various welfare or even charitable programs to point to "Welfare Queens" and scream that these programs are either a failure, or mis-motivating or both. You've done both here. I have known many "welfare moms," none of whom have had the desire to stay there: the amount of money provided by welfare is simply not enough to live on. Moreover (and back on topic) both the Reagan *and* Clinton administrations made hundreds of changes to welfare to motivate people not to sit on their rears and do nothing. Its had little effect statistically, because "long term welfare" has *never* been a significant problem: no one wants to be on welfare and most get off of it quickly.
then we have an entity, government welfare, that tells us simultaneous that if we drive an old car, live in public housing have a certain number of kids, don't marry or attempt to achieve that we will take care of you. someplace in the mix i have to consider the lost dignity to accept or participate in the idea. many folks i have know, generally women would prefer to work, or do what most do but can't justify the efforts. this tells me something, maybe not dignity, has been lost in my version of the American dream.
The bottom line though is that none of this has anything to do with dignity. Concern about one's dignity comes way below having a roof over your head or food to feed your kids. If welfare lets anyone have a stable platform upon which to get back to being self sufficient, then its a really good thing.
As I mentioned in my previous post, this sort of thinking pretends that there is no cost to society of letting people just starve to death in the streets. It costs in crime, it costs in having to deal with the dead bodies, it costs in health care for indigents. The alternative is so ugly that I cannot believe that you'd advocate abolishing welfare and charity in an effort to save people's "dignity," but I guess anything is possible.
compassion, then may be a weakness in the sense to feel less guilty of what government can do to control so many, is overlooked for the sake of involvement or being accused of immoral or the lack of some emotion. in reality i shouldn't care.
Charity ends at home too,
Posted 02 April 2007 - 01:35 PM
yes, Reagan made some efforts to slow the system down and the congress that took office in 94 passed what was near the same bill vetoed on two previous occasions, but signed on the third try. since then many states have made genuine efforts to curb actions which they themselves instigated. the Wisconsin story the most interesting. tens of thousands moved to Wis., to receive aid with their no residence time requirement, to participate and nearly bankrupted the states system.
i don't care much for the *Welfare Moms* viewpoint, since they merely accept an offer, made by government, as i suggested. i do mention the ladies that follow the process to receive the aid, but DO NOT blame them. i probably know as many that refused to accept any aid, as you do that did so. for many reason, generally being married, they were not qualified to receive such aid. rather than play the game they kept there husband and generally went to work. about 50 or so over the years, worked in my stores or some i ran, in south Texas. most did just fine, remained independent, kept their dignity and their husbands.
no, dependency can cause loss of personal self perception. it increases from lack of pay back potential and generally leads to expectations, which leads to all kinds of generational pass-down problems. i am not talking about a person with five kids and dependent on a partner to earn a living which i assume is to both their interest.
there is no one starving in the streets of the USA. NO ONE....of the millions of social workers, cops or well intended people, this is not going to happen.
there may be a few that choose a bottle of beer over, a hot dog or some to proud to visit the nearest soup kitchen or any one of the 100's of private, religious, city or state agencies set up for this purpose. man or woman...
i am not opposed to genuine aid. i would rather it be left up to local individuals or groups, even city and states for larger issues. federal governments are not set up to handle such programs and any motivation by government is and cannot be compassion. aid by government should be if anything to those that can provide services to help people attain permanent solutions, which you know can't happen through a bureaucracy.
i am sorry, if i place dignity above so many human emotions. purpose or sense of being a part of as opposed to drain on the total is upper most in most peoples mind. in old age, you see this much more, as abilities fail and dependency increases. i don't believe in old folks homes any more than i do government social involvement, but then i realize i am in the minority...most prefer to pay their taxes and sleep well thinking government can solve the problem.