(01-31-2014 04:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 05:38 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 05:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 04:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm as compassionate as anyone you know.

What I'm not in favor of is having money I earned extorted from me by the government and given to someone who's going to squander it on dumb (and illegal) things.

I admit a don't know how to break the cycle of stupid, but Lyndon Johnson's great society isn't the solution.

I don't think it was ever meant to be the solution.

Then do tell, what was it supposed to be the solution for?

I may be wrong but I think the great society was meant to stem the tide of poverty not completely eradicate it.

Statistics clearly show that in the decades after the great society started, it was successful in lowering poverty.

Then clearly show us that. There are as many people, perhaps even more, in poverty in the US as there were prior to the GS, highest number since 1959, in fact. The rate came down nominally for some time, but hasn't moved much at all in the past 40 years or so.

now, the way we define poverty has certainly changed, and things that were considered luxury items some time ago are now commonplace. But that has little to do with the Great society or War on poverty; more to do with costs of technologies coming down rapidly and competition, availability.

For what has been thrown at this issue over the years, very little has changed other than materially. The poor are still poor, and we will always have the poor. At least until they choose to help themselves.