Reader comments

On Opinion: War on poverty should shift to states


Gerald Kerr 2 months, 1 week ago

As government has grown larger it is no wonder that disposable incomes have fallen. As government keeps spending money it doesn't have and borrowing more and printing more to repay its growing debts- the dollar drops in value. The greenback dollar was first distributed in 1913, it's worth less than 4 cents today.

The war on poverty has created more poverty than it has fixed. Regulation, false sense of entitlement, corruption, inflation, and crushed job creation has been the ill gained spoils of this political war fought to empower the ruling class and grow the dependent class that empowers it.

More bloviation from the elitists who have nursed the trough all their lives. No thanks, Gene.


Scott Burkhart 2 months, 1 week ago

For 100 years the social experiment of a large central government has "progressively" made things worse. It is time to roll back the size of the central government and block grant this money back to the states. The Federal government couldn't run a lemonade stand efficiently.


Leslie Swearingen 2 months, 2 weeks ago

Yeah, Mike, are we all fired up?

My thing is that those who need help should qualify by the same criteria regardless of what state they live in, otherwise you get enormous differences in what benefits are given out.

Some states like some cities are simply richer than others so their citizens are better off in even times of trouble. Federal benefits and rules would change this so that someone in Manhatten, New York and someone in Manhatten, Kansas would get the same amount if they were in the same situation.


Beator 2 months, 2 weeks ago

I thought "War" was a banned word in intellectual circles? Shouldn't it be a kinetic action on poverty?


Bart Johnson 2 months, 2 weeks ago

From 1950 to 1964 poverty was steadily going down. A rational person would conclude that this would mean it was time to roll back the anti-poverty programs of the New Deal since poverty was being alleviated. What actually happened? LBJ doubled down and created a massive increase in the size of government. Since then poverty has stopped going down.

They did this precisely because poverty was going away on its own. If they waited too long, then there would be no more poverty to provide an excuse for a massive expansion of the State. The War on Poverty was really a War on the Poor, with the point being to keep them poor. That is the product of these programs: poverty. Without poverty, all those bureaucrats lose their jobs because the program would have to be shut down.

Make no mistake, the only way to overcome poverty is to end the War on Poverty.


Linda and Bill Houghton 2 months, 2 weeks ago

Unfortunately, there is little faith in a lot of the state governments. Ours would probably try to find a way to channel the money to the top 1 percent.


Commenting has been disabled for this item.