Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (748989)	10/24/2013 1:42:14 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574004

Z, the "War on Poverty" was instituted to reduce the poverty rates that were seen in the 1950's and 1960's, which were sky-high. Even then, the poverty rate was already falling before the program was put into place, so if you just looked at the graph, the "War on Poverty" may have actually stopped the decline in poverty. Since then, the poverty rate has fluctuated between 10% and 15%, depending on the metric you use. Now look at the most recent years, when the poverty rates have increased as a result of the recent recession. Government spending on Medicare, SS, and low-income programs like food stamps are at record highs, both in absolute dollars and in percentage of GDP. Based on your arguments, the fact that spending on these "War on Poverty" programs is at record highs means that poverty ought to be lower or at least not rising. Yet they are. There's a simple explanation for all of this. Government programs do not reduce poverty rates, at least not directly. They can only assist those who end up in poverty due to various circumstances, but they don't reduce the number of those dependent on these programs. They were never intended to. Tenchusatsu