What factors limited the success of the War on Poverty?

Question

need a descriptive realistic paragraph answer.

Answer 1

Poverty is relative and, some say, an inevitable state. Some say that no matter how good the economy is at a particular time, you are still going to have some degree of poverty.

Johnson's announcement of a War on Poverty in 1964, witch seemed like a good idea for publicity at the time, led to the Economic Opportunity Act. This established the Office of Economic Opportunity, which was to administrate the local applications of of federal funds in hopes of reducing poverty.

Despite some success, the concept wained after the 1960's due to deregulation, growing criticism of welfare, and ideological shifts to reducing federal aid. It was argued that Johnson's policies had a negative impact because of their interventionist nature, and that the best way to fight this war is through top down economic growth.

There is still debate on how best to combat poverty poverty today, and some people in office might just not care, and that is some of the reasons which limit its success.

Answer 2

The biggest limiting factor to the "success" of the War on Poverty was the conservative thought that ignited the War on Welfare in the late 1960s. President Nixon was a salient critic of welfare recipients, and had considerable support in attributing welfare dependence to personal choice and laziness. Three and four presidencies later, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would perpetuate this accusatory philosophy and focus on policies that would reduce domestic spending and cut taxes for wealthy individuals. A harsh absence of presidential compassion for people in poverty was a clear contributor to the dominance of these attitudes during the 1970s and 1980s. Beliefs that attributed poverty and disadvantage to societal, rather than personal, factors remained throughout this period, but were not predominant in government, nor mainstream political thought. Anti-welfare beliefs continued throughout the Clinton presidency, but the attitude was much less accusatory and more incentives-based. The Clintonian perception of welfare was that it undermined incentives for the poor to work out of their economic position. Frankly, instead of accusing recipients of being lazy, the new attitude was that the welfare system itself should be blamed for encouraging dependence and laziness.

Answer 3

I think the redefinition of poverty in the US has really made the war on poverty unwinnable. Pretty much poverty isn't poverty by comparison to people who actually live in poverty, the definition for poverty for Americans is living a great life compared to others around the world.

Answer 4

Until you change the way a person thinks, you will never change their financial condition. As a mentor of mine says; "People are broke because of what they do, but because of how they think". This is a country that is founded on free enterprise, and business opportunities are all over the place. If someone is poor, they only need to make the decision to change their thinking and they will change their situation. Doubt me? Come meet me, I did it!!!!!!! I have been homeless, been evicted, lost more jobs than I shake a stick at. Once I changed how I think, got away from having an entitlement attitude that was heavily influenced by being a liberal democrat, and I started to think like a conservative my life changed. I started holding myself accountable and responsible for my life, I stopped blaming society, I stopped blaming everyone else for my life. I started to blame myself, and when I realized that it was my fault, then I realized immediately that if it was my fault, then I also had the ability to reverse the course of my life. So you want to end poverty? Change the way people think. I am proof of it.

Answer 5

by way of fact there are maximum of diverse clarification why every physique is poor which you would be able to in uncomplicated terms cope with the indicators via giving the poor money incredibly than the reasons of poverty. Giving the poor money would not raise them out of poverty.

Answer 6

Americans who live in homes with central AC and heat, refrigerate and freeze their food, cook with modern stoves and ovens, wash everything they own in sanitary modern equipment are not poor. So if you are talking about American poverty, there is no such animal.

People who live on dirt floors, cook and heat their homes with dry animal dung, wash everything, including themselves, in the same water supply they get their drinking water from, would not even know refrigeration equipment if they saw it, ect., are usually ruled over by people who use the poverty of their subjects to keep them in line. Most of the money and goods sent to the poor of those countries is hijacked by the government for their friends and/or soldiers.

Answer 7

Two main things:
1. funding diverted to the Vietnam War;
2. racism/backlash to the Civil Rights Movement (as many other of the respondants talk about).

Yes, Nixon was key in the way he touted "law and order" to rally disaffected whites resentful of large-scale social spending. Reagan's assault on the (black) "welfare queen" continued this assault.

Answer 8

Our government is filled with Flim Flam Men!


They make speeches about they must have taxes, and every politician knows what is being done in Alaska. Alaska Pays all their residents with earth rights and doesn’t tax their residents. This makes the politicians liars!


They make speeches to get elected and make promises about what they will do for us. They say nothing about getting every dime of lobby money to do what big biz wants that’s opposite what they promised you they would do. That makes them cheats!

They stole your grandmother’s retirement money from SS. Now you face getting nothing for your SS payments. That makes them thieves!

They tax us, but they know the foreign companies pay no taxes on the goods they sell here. The goods are sold then bought on paper in a foreign port to skate the tax laws. Thus eliminating their profit on paper to cheat the US out of the taxes they owe. This makes them backstabbers!

They take lobby money to put earmarks and pork in every law that passes their desk. Then they do photo ops, and news clips to promote themselves as doing something good for us and America. So they corkscrew us!

They make back room deals and give our tax money to foreigners who build factories with our money. Then they write laws that send our jobs overseas. This makes them dirty dealers!

So lets total all this up. They lie, cheat, steal, backstab, corkscrew, and dirty deal. HELL their Flim Flam Men! Just like in the George C. Scott movie “ The Flim Flam Man”!
They are called the “ Honorable” Senator or Representative. Hell Flim Flam Men have NO honor what so ever! They’re crooks, criminals for God’s sake!

The BBC has film of ALL of them going in and out of Abramoff’s restaurant. That’s THE place in DC to get loaded with lobby money. The BBC has been running this story, and trying to get the US media to run it too. The US media refuses to run the story.

It’s time to take America back! Get registered! VOTE! Vote for anyone that’s not a Democrat or a Republican. They have ALL the power and ALL the control. They must bear ALL the responsibility for their gross mismanagement, abysmally poor judgment, lies, cheating, thefts, back stabs, corkscrews, and dirty deals! It’s time to put THEM in the unemployment line!


www.earthrights.net/docs/oilrent that’s oilrent
www.pfd.state.ak.us
The Flim Flam Man starring George C. Scott
LinkTV BBC expose on US officials and lobby money