The War on the War on Poverty

5 thoughts on “The War on the War on Poverty”

1. Dean, today’s GI Bill is not a success. It does not provide enough to cover even a single semester at a decent university. It is fit for people who want to doom their academic careers by attending a second-rate public university. The GI Bill offered after World War II did a lot of good for society by providing reasonable funds, while today’s GI Bill is just a tool to sucker confused young people into joining.

   Similarly, the Pell Grant is for me (from a low-income home) $800 a semester, while a semester of tuition is $16,000. How can one consider the government exceedingly generous when it gives such meagre sums?

2. The NYT concludes that “Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues” forgetting that these same Americans gave him a second term. (How come it seems their conclusion wasn’t really part of the poll?) In any case, Robert Novak has a better analysis of the problem.

3. Note #1: I’ve read some disingenuous characterization of conservative positions but this one really takes the cake.

   Myron Magnet writes:
   “If you want to help the poor … liberate them from dependency through welfare reform; free their communities from criminal anarchy through activist policing; give them the education they need to succeed in a modern economy by holding their schools accountable; and let them enjoy the rewards of work by taxing their modest wages lightly–or not at all.”

   “For the worst-off–those hampered by addiction or alcohol or faulty socialization–let the government pay private organizations, especially religious ones, to help. Such people need a change of heart to solve their problems, the president himself deeply believed; and while a clergyman or a therapist might help them, a bureaucrat couldn’t.”

   And the Left describes this as “a ‘Let them Eat Cake’ policy of benign neglect towards poverty that is offensive and contrary to the teachings of our Christian faith.”

   Only to the Left could liberation and freedom from poverty be interpreted as “contrary to the … Christian faith” and nothing but a “policy of benign neglect.” Yes, it is much more in line with our Christian faith to force people to stand in line before a bunch of bureaucrats for a welfare check, to live behind burglar bars in crime infested neighborhoods, to chain poor children to a failing schools, and abandon addicts to the slavery of drug and alcohol addiction. Yes, that does sound so much more like the Gospels.

4. #4 – Americans gave Bush a second term because Kerry was worse on so many issues. Simply because Bush won doesn’t mean he is in touch with the American public. In his hubris, I am sure he believes this, but that is simply not the case. Polls tell us that most Americans want to limit outsourcing and close the borders, two things neither Bush nor Kerry were interested in doing. So those two issues just dropped from sight, as neither candidate would seriously address them. There are a lot of other issues that both candidates were almost identical on, and their opinions were completely out-of-step with the American electorate.

   That being said, let’s put government programs in perspective. No socialist state has ever managed to eliminate poverty. In fact, they have only expanded it by making almost everyone equally poor. Those who favor state-run welfare are simply dodging this unpleasant fact. Europe, currently, is suffering a major funding crisis in its desire to continue social welfare programs that are not working and are simply too expensive to continue.

   This doesn’t mean that we are to forget the poor. Locally managed welfare programs have a higher success rate than those run federally. Perhaps as part of a roll-back in federal programs we could look more to states and localities. At the same time, private, religious-based approaches tend to have better results. That doesn’t mean the government should fund them, but rather that the government should get out of the way and let them do their work.

   The U.S. does major problems with poverty. However, 36% of the impoverished population of the U.S. are either immigrant families or the U.S.-born children of immigrants. In addition to directly sucking money out of the system, impoverished illegal immigrants depress wages and directly affect the ability of low-wage Americans to work themselves out of their circumstances.

   If you want to help poor Americans, reduce the burden on tax payers, and run more effective programs – stop the illegal and legal immigration of poor people, kill federal programs, expand local and state programs, and contribute more to private charities run by people who actually care.

5. Can You Recognize a Ponzi Scheme When You See One?

   A little bit of Economics 101 cures a lot of Leftism
   So should the history of the 20th Century

   ECONOMICS IS NOT NON-CHRISTIAN
   Sometimes I think that Leftism amounts to no more than ignorance of economics. After all the economies of Communist countries simply did not work. Proof of this Communist societies fell deeper and depper into poverty until they collapsed.

   ALAN GREENSPAN KNOWS A PONZI SCHEME WHEN HE SEES IT
   Our Federal Reserve Chairman just confirmed in a Congressional hearing that the Ponzi scheme is now broke and needs to be fixed. Limited number of ways folks, increase returns on investment, increase tax, or decrease or delay benefits. There is no such thing as a free lunch and the observation by President Bush that the Ponzi scheme is imploding is not non-Christian, it is simply truthful.

   PERSONAL ACCOUNTS ARE NOT “PRIVITIZATION”
   The proposal is not a “privitization” scheme. Personal accounts would be maintained inside the Social Security system and they would be voluntary, not mandatory. I am not embracing this idea as the sole solution. There may well be other, thoughtful and effective solutions. But a solution is what we need. What is your’s Dean? I do believe that President Bush has publicly stated that he will consider any reasonable alternative, however, he is insisting that we work on a solution.

   INTERGENERATIONAL THEFT: HE MAY BE YOUR GRANFATHER BUT HE IS STILL FLEECING YOU BLIND
   If the younger generation of this country fully understood the magnitude of the wealth transfer from the young to the old through Social Security there would be a political tsunami. Please remember that benefits under Social Security were not originally intended to be anti-poverty program. Benefits are NOT adjusted for income, they go to well-to-do persons as well as poor persons. Many people in the public still think that someone that government has been putting their contributions in some small little account with their name on it and letting it grow. Not so, they have been spending today’s tax on today’s retirees. They are used the heavy and regressive taxation of young voters to buy the votes of AARP. In the interests of full disclosure, I no longer quality as a “young” worker.

   Social Security tax is one of the most regressive taxes in the country and has an economic effect nearly equal to income tax. Benefits were granted to retirees through legislation that bore no relationship to the value of the benefits paid into the system. The extra comes from current workers. It is a pyramid scheme, not an investment system.

Comments are closed.