View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Promote self-sufficiency and strong marriages

Posted: January 23, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: January 23, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Fifty years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered his famous “War on Poverty” speech, purposing “to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.” Unfortunately, like our other wars in the last half-century, this one has not lived up to its noble ideals.

Despite our spending more on this “War on Poverty” than on all the military wars in America’s history, the poverty rate today is nearly the same as it was 50 yeas ago.

Instead of preventing poverty, we have locked millions into inter-generational government dependency. Our welfare programs have, too often, provided disincentives for able-bodied adults to work and tax penalties for fathers to remain in the home.

Social studies have concluded that children born and raised outside traditional marriages are five times more likely to experience poverty than their peers from intact families. They also face obstacles educationally, behaviorally, and in relationships.

We need to win the “war on poverty” by enacting welfare reforms that promote self-sufficiency and strong marriages.

 

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: January 23, 2014 6:31 a.m.

The "War on Poverty" didn't even last 10 years. During that time it was quite effective but helping Halliburton make money in SE Asia was draining all the discretionary funds. Why feed poor people when we can get strung out 10,000 miles away?

If "intact" families are desirable you must be thrilled that gay couples can finally tie the knot; they are more stable than your average hetero couple; most are great with kids.


OldReliable: Posted: January 23, 2014 6:45 a.m.

Gary Curtis, you are so right. LBJ was simply another BIG Government politician and wouldn't you think Democrats would finally wake up? Even rock star Bono understands private enterprise and self reliance are the answers.


technologist: Posted: January 23, 2014 9:30 a.m.

"The "War on Poverty" didn't even last 10 years."

How about the spending?


therightstuff: Posted: January 23, 2014 4:42 p.m.

"""We need to win the “war on poverty” by enacting welfare reforms that promote self-sufficiency and strong marriages."""

How cruel. And this doesn't address scarcity or climate change. Strong marriages do not work in the modern world. The answer to poverty is that we need to spend trillions more.

As a service to all of our guest readers, I am summarizing the long post which is sure to come from our far-left, Obama loyalist, Indy


therightstuff: Posted: January 23, 2014 4:48 p.m.

oops...I left out that religious conservatives, Fox News, and all Republicans are evil and only use focus group tested taking points. And oh yes, Bush 'DOUBLED' the national debt. Anything negative about Obama is made up by the right wing noise machines. For true and unbiased coverage, trust the New York Times. ;)


ricketzz: Posted: January 24, 2014 6:54 a.m.

What worked really well was high marginal tax rates and government spending on projects that employ a lot of people and aid everyone. This was the period between 1938 and 1982, after bank regulations, labor laws, etc. were enacted and before Ronald Reagan sold us out to the Globalists. We won a war in the Pacific, built freeways from coast to coast, put a dozen people on the moon, lost a war in SE Asia, paid off the war debt, and were less than 1 trillion dollars in debt when Cowboy Ronnie came to town. It has been all downhill ever since, unless you are of the coddled class, in which case you are probably as clueless as Clouseau. We are still paying for Reagan's favors to the wealthy and powerful.

Ayn Rand died of lung cancer. She was on Medicare and Social Security at the time.


invisiblesalmon: Posted: January 24, 2014 8:58 a.m.

Correlation does not imply causation. It could be that couples who are better off financially are more likely to get married.


CaptGene: Posted: January 24, 2014 11:42 a.m.

TRS, you can't claim the liberal high ground if you fail to mention the Koch Brothers.


technologist: Posted: January 24, 2014 3:13 p.m.

Invisiblesalmon:

You're correct that the better educated and affluent have a historical statistical probability of marrying and maintaing intact households that at odds with national trends for other demographics.

Isn't that a result of having higher standards and making better choices rather than conditions of birth? Or are you asserting that folks of more modest circumstances are somehow deficient in that regard?


invisiblesalmon: Posted: January 24, 2014 5:57 p.m.

I'm saying this letter is oversimplifying things.


technologist: Posted: January 25, 2014 11:34 p.m.

Why not take the opportunity to add clarity and nuance while answering my query?


technologist: Posted: January 25, 2014 10:16 a.m.

"What worked really well was high marginal tax rates and government spending on projects that employ a lot of people and aid everyone. This was the period between 1938 and 1982, after bank regulations, labor laws, etc. were enacted…"

Yes, the magnificence of stagflation, interest rates of 20+% and national malaise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kakFDUeoJKM


ricketzz: Posted: January 26, 2014 6:08 a.m.

Jimmy Carter doesn't define the New Deal any more than W defines "compassionate conservatism". Things were better before Reagan for all but a few businesspeople. Women had more respect. The TV didn't yell at you. You could get news on the radio. The schools worked.

Now, in the Randian Utopia of today, you can't get a straight answer from anybody about anything. The schools don't work. The roads are obsolete. Corporations write their own rules. This country is not worth saving.


OldReliable: Posted: January 26, 2014 6:24 a.m.

Ricketzzz, if this country is not worth saving then why aren't you living in... hmmmm... let's see.... how about Somalia or Bolivia or....


invisiblesalmon: Posted: January 26, 2014 11:01 a.m.

One of the best things the government could be doing to help stop poverty would be to provide contraceptives and birth control for free to people with low incomes and to advocate safe sex practices and give proper sex education. It'll cost the government less money to pay for a woman's birth control pill than it does to pay for a child.


CaptGene: Posted: January 26, 2014 1:42 p.m.

Invisablesalmon, would you support making those things mandatory for people on welfare?


technologist: Posted: January 26, 2014 3:25 p.m.

"This was the period between 1938 and 1982, after bank regulations, labor laws, etc. were enacted…"

"Jimmy Carter doesn't define the New Deal…"

The Carter Presidency occurred during your self-defined period. There are other periods of gross incompetence but that one was within living memory of the majority of posters here.

You seem to have an affinity for self-contradiction within the same column thread when your logical inconsistencies are pointed out, ricketzz.


invisiblesalmon: Posted: January 26, 2014 4:33 p.m.

"Invisablesalmon, would you support making those things mandatory for people on welfare?"

No. That would be a huge violation of individual liberties. It wouldn't be possible for the government to force someone to use contraception anyway.


technologist: Posted: January 26, 2014 7:32 p.m.

"One of the best things the government could be doing to help stop poverty would be to provide contraceptives and birth control for free to people with low incomes…"

"It'll cost the government less money…"

"It wouldn't be possible for the government to force someone to use contraception anyway."

Take each of these statements separately and ponder them. And then consider them as a whole, i.e. related. Rather thought provoking, isn't it?


CaptGene: Posted: January 26, 2014 8:33 p.m.

"No. That would be a huge violation of individual liberties"

So, do you also think it's wrong for the government to require drug tests in order to get welfare?


invisiblesalmon: Posted: January 27, 2014 12:06 a.m.

technologist: The idea is to encourage people not to have children if they are not financially ready to, which isn't what we're doing now.

"So, do you also think it's wrong for the government to require drug tests in order to get welfare?"

What purpose would that serve? If you refuse someone welfare because they're an addict, it doesn't make them more likely to quit, it's just going to make that person even worse off. That does nothing to solve the issue of drug addiction in this country, it just punishes poor people for doing drugs.


CaptGene: Posted: January 27, 2014 5:11 a.m.

So, if someone is not responsible enough to stop having children they can't afford, or to not use drugs when they are poor, what makes you think they are responsible enough to use birth control, even when it free?


emheilbrun: Posted: January 27, 2014 12:15 p.m.

There's an old saying...You can lead a man to a condom, but you can't make him wear it...
or something like that.


philellis: Posted: January 27, 2014 2:21 p.m.

em, I think that that was tried earlier in several foreign countries with very poor results. Your statement has a strong ring of truth to it.


technologist: Posted: January 27, 2014 5:13 p.m.

""It wouldn't be possible for the government to force someone to use contraception anyway."

Hmm…China.


ricketzz: Posted: January 28, 2014 7:04 a.m.

Technologist: I'd explain the external forces brought to bear on the unfortunate Carter. Note: it is easier to enact bad ideas when people are convinced nothing is working. Reagan made things 100 times worse. Reagan made things the way they are today. Our "Golden Age" occurred simultaneously with 70%-90% marginal tax rates. Greed is not good. Government protects us from psycho-corporations. Bad business people are the ones trying to dismantle this country.


technologist: Posted: January 28, 2014 12:18 p.m.

Assertions aren't facts, ricketzz. Repetition doesn't alter the fact that you cannot explain the economic mechanism whereby 70-90% marginal tax rates produce prosperity. You appear to lack understanding that no one actually paid those rates as well.

In your simplistic perspective, if high taxation rates = prosperity, every advanced Western economy would adopt that model and live a permanent "Golden Age".

Your vague accusation of "greed" is the lazy thinking of an ideology discredited by history.


CaptGene: Posted: January 28, 2014 4:33 p.m.

ricketzz: "Note: it is easier to enact bad ideas when people are convinced nothing is working" Yeah, like Obamacare.


ricketzz: Posted: January 29, 2014 7:17 a.m.

I never claimed higher marginal tax rates directly cause prosperity; I say they protected us from psycho-billionaires. Imaging studies, etc., have shown that successful business executives tend to have antisocial pathologies. It is probably best that we do not reward these bullies too much, lest they get the giant heads we see today. "Job creators" my butt. They are the biggest impairments in society. They have corrupted government top to bottom. The Good Ole Boys are in charge and you lick their boots.


technologist: Posted: January 29, 2014 8:24 a.m.

"I never claimed higher marginal tax rates directly cause prosperity; I say they protected us from psycho-billionaires."

Whatever the source of your assertion about billionaire pathologies, describe the so called "protection" economic process that's enabled by 70-90% marginal tax rates.

Using Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as archetypes, is your assertion that they created no jobs with their companies, innovation and investments?


CaptGene: Posted: January 29, 2014 8:45 a.m.

All in the same paragraph: "studies...have shown that successful business executives tend to have antisocial pathologies" "...and you lick their boots"

Remarkable.


ricketzz: Posted: January 30, 2014 6:38 a.m.

We are not talking about employment. We are talking about harm.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=psychopathic+ceo

Or is there such a thing as a good psychopath?

Note: Bill Gates wants most of the people on Earth to go away.


technologist: Posted: January 31, 2014 9:26 p.m.

Fiction: "Note: Bill Gates wants most of the people on Earth to go away."

Fact: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/what-we-do


technologist: Posted: January 31, 2014 9:29 p.m.

ricketzz: "Job creators" my butt.

technologist: "Using Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as archetypes, is your assertion that they created no jobs with their companies, innovation and investments?"

ricketzz: "We are not talking about employment."

res ipsa loquitur


ricketzz: Posted: January 31, 2014 6:24 a.m.

I was talking about slavish devotion to The Globalist Elite and you named two. Very good. Jobs creates work for sweatshops surrounded by suicide nets.

The rich do not "create jobs". People buying stuff creates jobs.


technologist: Posted: January 31, 2014 8:58 a.m.

Non sequitur.

How, pray tell, do people buy "stuff" if it isn't imagined, designed, engineered, produced and distributed, ricketzz? Do you think that "stuff" populates physical store aisles and online sites by magic?

You should refrain from pontificating about business and those engaged in it. You don't seem to know much about it.


ricketzz: Posted: February 2, 2014 7:59 a.m.

Isn't "imagined", "designed", "engineered" the same thing? What do you use that was invented by a rich person (after they had become rich)? Rich people buy good ideas. Rich people bury competitors.

Most of the "stuff" on shelves was invented in prehistory. The gadgetry of late that seems to hypnotize the user is a mixed blessing at best.

There are way too many distractions. Distractions from what, you ask? Turn off the sound track. Turn off the Narrator. Let the world tell you, which it will do, if you ever learn to truly relax your mind.


technologist: Posted: February 2, 2014 2:13 p.m.

Ricketzz: Isn't "imagined", "designed", "engineered" the same thing?

No. See: Jony Ive for schooling on the topic.

"Most of the "stuff" on shelves was invented in prehistory.

Like integrated circuits, software, fiber optics, ubiquitous wireless networks and inexpensive air travel?

Your posts mock themselves, ricketzz.


ricketzz: Posted: February 4, 2014 7:35 a.m.

"Stuff" like food, cloth, furniture, paint, nails, hand tools, etc.

Electronics was invented by Larry Bud Melman's uncle. He made an amplifier but couldn't tell you how it worked. Physicists predicted many solid state active devices decades before they were realized, again by salaried researchers applying theories developed by other salaried researchers.

"Ubiquitous wireless networks" are being used by corporations and the government to control you. Hardly a blessing.

I don't know what kind of stores you go to. It sure ain't the kind most people need. Material doodads aren't going to ease the hunger. Free cable TV is not going to stop the Revolution. The lack of a nuclear Clever-esque family unit is not the root cause of poverty. Stupidity is.


technologist: Posted: February 4, 2014 7:05 p.m.

"Stuff" like food, cloth, furniture, paint, nails, hand tools, etc."

So, instead of "most stuff" it's now some stuff. I'm not going to bother further chasing your protean positions. They're nearly indistinguishable from random typing.


ricketzz: Posted: February 6, 2014 6:02 a.m.

No. It's still most stuff. The stores most people go to most often are food stores. Food is an early invention, as are clothes and lumber.

The big difference between us is I can see both sides. I don't necessarily think "civilization" bigger than a village is a success; gadgets and European portraiture drenched in blood don't make up for the loss of nature, IMHO.

There was a damn near perfect "civilization" here when we started invading. Without thinking about it we started murdering people way smarter than the smelly boat people. Now we are clueless about harmony with the land.

Rather than sitting still until we get our bearings, we flail.


technologist: Posted: February 6, 2014 7:18 p.m.

If only I had your multifaceted perspectives, ricketzz. Perhaps I'd be able to see both sides of the produce aisle, shop for season appropriate attire and breathe in the heady aroma of sawdust at a local home improvement store. I feel so limited.

Let's keep this just between us, ok?


ricketzz: Posted: February 7, 2014 7:20 a.m.

Gadgetry is the 21st century of the shiny beads we gave the locals in exchange for Manhattan. It pacifies and captivates and when the effect wears off you get a newer model and your endocrines warm your heart again, for a while. Meanwhile, corporations and govts use the gadgets to track our every move and chart our every thought, getting constant feedback, in near real time, about the effectiveness of their mind control. You are so far removed from stark reality it is terrifying to think you are just one of millions.

BTW, the Borg is carbon based. Cylons want to rid the universe of carbon based life forms.


CaptGene: Posted: February 7, 2014 11:05 a.m.

So far we have learned that ricketzz takes comedians seriously, and fears Cylons.


technologist: Posted: February 7, 2014 11:09 a.m.

Luddite

The Luddites were 19th-century English textile artisans who protested against newly developed labor-saving machinery from 1811 to 1817. The stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage laborers, leaving them without work.

"You are so far removed from stark reality it is terrifying to think you are just one of millions."

Using your rants as a baseline for comparative analysis, thanks for the compliment! :-D

Please provide a step-by-step guide to live off grid as you do, ricketzz.


technologist: Posted: February 7, 2014 12:54 p.m.

On second thought, you'd have to use a computing device to provide guidance, revealing IP based geolocation. So, never mind.


ricketzz: Posted: February 8, 2014 8:56 a.m.

I don't live off the grid and nothing I said so indicates. I have said and continue to posit that your mind should not be occupied every waking second. You need to be able to turn off your mind and relax. Instead, people use gadgets like a drug to avoid thinking unpleasant thoughts that lurk in the solitude. Connectivity has nothing to do with a person getting in touch with themselves.

I have been an electronic communications technician since the early 1960s. Your immediate bestowment of "Luddite" begs another cliche`, but I will defer to grace.


technologist: Posted: February 8, 2014 7:01 p.m.

"I have been an electronic communications technician since the early 1960s."

Rather than a journalist? Or were you performing them simultaneously? What other wonders do you claim?


ricketzz: Posted: February 11, 2014 6:29 a.m.

I got my first radio job by fixing things for free at the local AM daytimer in Scottsdale. I got a commercial operator's license in 1963. First paid gig was Christmas 1963. I think it was a Sunday.I had to sign the station on and play music and long-form programming. I think I got off at 2PM. $0.25 an hour and all the rock and roll records the station wouldn't play. I have worked radio, talk radio, operated TV stations; built TV stations; built 2 recording studios; rewired countless sports bars; worked backstage at some of the biggest LIVE TV shows; and even get to talk to you.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...