The war on poverty programs are the only reason poverty is lower today than it was in 1967

[kp404]

I wouldnt know where to start , ending corporations would reduce the wealth disparity, making lobbying illegal, no bailouts, ending subsidies, moving to a consumption tax or even negative tax, etc.

I personally consider the war on poverty a failure, because i dont judge the benefits we are seeing to be worth the cost we have paid. It was, and still is a bad trade off imho.

I agree with this in that the War on Poverty has failed miserably and blacks especially continue to struggle at or below the poverty line. I also agree that ending corporations is a key goal in helping the nation

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

While fighting poverty is a noble endeavor, our methods treat symptoms instead of causes

I.e. old folks should have enough to retire on on their own without Social Security. But until we address the causes we will keep utilizing these unsustainable bandages

 

[Street Knowledge]

While fighting poverty is a noble endeavor, our methods treat symptoms instead of causes

I.e. old folks should have enough to retire on on their own without Social Security. But until we address the causes we will keep utilizing these unsustainable bandages

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I'm not blaming old folks. I am just saying, regular people should have access to incomes and costs of living that will enable them to generate wealth and not depend on the govt

Middle class incomes are as stagnant as Bow Wow's career... govt should be restructuring the system to encourage a more equitable distribution of wealth without transfers of wealth like SS or borrowing from our future with shyt like quantative easing

 

[Deaf2twothirds]

Propoganda. I guess they intentionally left the 47.8 million Americans on food stamps out of this article.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

The war on poverty was considered a failure by historians so this article doesnt really mean anything. He focused to much on social problems and not enough, on Economic issues.

 

[tmonster]

you can bring a horse to water...

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

i didnt say it wasnt, i said its an idea that came from milton friedman, its a "neoliberal" idea

i think the authors need to clear up wether they include medicare and medicaid in social security spending, because those are all separate programs

and it still stands that the #2 anti poverty program is a "neoliberal" idea and this author seems to think we need to expand charter schools to alleviate poverty

You don't know what you're talking about. Milton Friedman supported a negative income tax, but the EITC is hardly the same as a negative income tax, nor is it idea that started with Milton Friedman. The EITC was law during the Harding administration in the 20's briefly before it got repealed. And it's an example of government using progressive taxation to try and increase the living standards of the poor and low middle income earners.

Milton Friedman believed in a negative income tax, meaning a tax credits (checks) giving to poor people and replacing the rest of the welfare state, education, social security, and healthcare with vouchers. He opposed the EITC because Milton Friedman wanted an NIT to REPLACE the welfare state. That was the purpose of it in his view. The EITC hasn't replaced anything. And he wanted it to go to everyone under the income threshold regardless of whether or not they were employed. The EITC only goes to working people.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Propoganda. I guess they intentionally left the 47.8 million Americans on food stamps out of this article.

Respond to articles without even skimming them brehs.

 

[theworldismine13]

You don't know what you're talking about. Milton Friedman supported a negative income tax, but the EITC is hardly the same as a negative income tax, nor is it idea that started with Milton Friedman. The EITC was law during the Harding administration in the 20's briefly before it got repealed. And it's an example of government using progressive taxation to try and increase the living standards of the poor and low middle income earners.

Milton Friedman believed in a negative income tax, meaning a tax credits (checks) giving to poor people and replacing the rest of the welfare state, education, social security, and healthcare with vouchers. He opposed the EITC because Milton Friedman wanted an NIT to REPLACE the welfare state. That was the purpose of it in his view. The EITC hasn't replaced anything. And he wanted it to go to everyone under the income threshold regardless of whether or not they were employed. The EITC only goes to working people.

LOL, the fact that milton friedman did not believe it went far enough doesnt change the fact that he was the one pushing it, regardless of how it was diluted its still fundamentally a capitalistic/neo liberal/free market idea

and harding is obviously irrelevant

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

LOL, the fact that milton friedman did not believe it went far enough doesnt change the fact that he was the one pushing it, regardless of how it was diluted its still fundamentally a capitalistic/neo liberal/free market idea

and harding is obviously irrelevant

You're not making any sense. Mil
ton Friedman was not "the one pushing it." He was one of many people who thought tax credits for low income earners was a good idea. You think Milton Friedman invented the EITC? Plenty of economists believed in tax credits giving to poor people. Andrew Mellon, Warren Harding's Treasury Secretary, one of the most important people in American economics history, and someone who influenced Friedman and supply-side economics in general, proposed and implemented a form of an earned income tax credit 50 years earlier. It's not irrelevant just because you don't want to acknowledge it.

Milton Freidman OPPOSED the EITC when it became law in 1975. You're giving all the credit to someone who didn't even support the law. Friedman supported the NIT. NIT =/= EITC. Friedman's idea of a negative income tax was one that would compound with higher income earned...it was supposed to be an incentive to get people to earn more money and motivate people who didn't work to start working. And it was specifically designed to replace the welfare state and replace it with vouchers.
The EITC is just a refundable tax credit to help lower income earners with keep their heads above water. It's not a partisan ideological concoction. Trying to claim it as a neoliberal Friedmanite success is not accurate.

 

[theworldismine13]

You're not making any sense. Mil
ton Friedman was not "the one pushing it." He was one of many people who thought tax credits for low income earners was a good idea. You think Milton Friedman invented the EITC? Plenty of economists believed in tax credits giving to poor people. Andrew Mellon, Warren Harding's Treasury Secretary, one of the most important people in American economics history, and someone who influenced Friedman and supply-side economics in general, proposed and implemented a form of an earned income tax credit 50 years earlier. It's not irrelevant just because you don't want to acknowledge it.

Milton Freidman OPPOSED the EITC when it became law in 1975. You're giving all the credit to someone who didn't even support the law. Friedman supported the NIT. NIT =/= EITC. Friedman's idea of a negative income tax was one that would compound with higher income earned...it was supposed to be an incentive to get people to earn more money and motivate people who didn't work to start working. And it was specifically designed to replace the welfare state and replace it with vouchers.
The EITC is just a refundable tax credit to help lower income earners with keep their heads above water. It's not a partisan ideological concoction. Trying to claim it as a neoliberal Friedmanite success is not accurate.

im not following how harding, a republican, or mellon who you say influenced freidman having a version of the EITC is a counterpoint to the assertion that the EITC is a free market solution, unless im missing something that would bolster my argument

but anyways here is friedman in his own words saying that the EITC is ok but it didnt go far enough

 

[theworldismine13]

The Other Milton Friedman: A Conservative With a Social Welfare Program
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html?_r=0

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

im not following how harding, a republican, or mellon who you say influenced freidman having a version of the EITC is a counterpoint to the assertion that the EITC is a free market solution, unless im missing something that would bolster my argument

but anyways here is friedman in his own words saying that the EITC is ok but it didnt go far enough

Yeah, so like I said, Milton Friedman wanted a negative income tax only as a replacement for all means-tested social welfare programs as he said in that video. That's not what the EITC is and he opposed the EITC was it was first proposed and implemented. The EITC is not a solidly ideological left or right policy. Its political opposition came mostly from the right, not the left in its early days. And it was crafted by a Democratic Senator, Russell Long. Trying to claim it for "free markets" is silly. It's not a free market phenomena anyway because it's progressive wealth redistribution and government intervention.

And fukk Milton Friedman btw.

 

[theworldismine13]

Yeah, so like I said, Milton Friedman wanted a negative income tax only as a replacement for all means-tested social welfare programs as he said in that video. That's not what the EITC is and he opposed the EITC was it was first proposed and implemented. The EITC is not a solidly ideological left or right policy. Its political opposition came mostly from the right, not the left in its early days. And it was crafted by a Democratic Senator, Russell Long. Trying to claim it for "free markets" is silly. It's not a free market phenomena anyway because it's progressive wealth redistribution and government intervention.

And fukk Milton Friedman btw.

you are just copping corny ass pleas, anybody with a half a brain can see the connection with freidman and friedman's criticism is that it did not go far enough