English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

1- helped only the middle class
2- gave the federal government too much authority
3- spent too little money
4- gave local communities too much government power

2007-03-11 10:30:18 · 2 answers · asked by sddsf s 1 in Arts & Humanities History

2 answers

Unless I am totally mistaken, the main objection to the "Great Society" was that it spent far too much money to improve the plight of the poor but yet produced few results. It was not as much of a total failure as simply not nearly enough of a success. Those opposed generally praised its goals, only disagreeing with its methods. Proponents of it hold fast to the view that increased spending for the Vietnam War lead to a dwindling of funds that caused the ultimate failure.

In particular, it's expansion of a full scale welfare program, (not to be confused with the generic term of "a welfare state"), where actual monetary funds were given to poor people, drew the ire of politicians on both sides. Right wing pols of the era naturally disagreed with almost any social program for the poor but even left-wing pols were opposed to the idea of "welfare" as it would eventually become known as.

For it can be noted that Democratic Presidents FDR and JFK, who both supported spending on social welfare programs, went on record against such payments. When they did this they called it "the dole". FDR said "I'm against the dole and I've always have been". JFK said, "I'm for a hand up, not a hand out". Robert Kennedy, who actually lived through the implementation of the Great Society's welfare programs and agreed with his brother, felt strongly that it would eventually begin to harm families.

2007-03-11 10:56:33 · answer #1 · answered by Raindog 3 · 0 0

2

2007-03-11 17:57:40 · answer #2 · answered by CanProf 7 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers