Tag Archives: War on Poverty

Will We Ever See An Exit Strategy From The War On Poverty?

exit strategy

President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ), in his 1964
State of the Union speech, declared
"unconditional war on poverty in America." LBJ said:


"Our aim is not only to relieve the
symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent
it."
"We must enact youth employment legislation to put
jobless, aimless, hopeless youngsters to work on useful
projects."
"We must distribute more food to the needy
through a broader food stamp program."

The "poverty" rate, when LBJ said that,
was 19 percent, and, according to Cato
Institute researcher Michael Tanner
, "… falling
rapidly." Tanner also says that despite $12 trillion in federal
welfare spending and $3 trillion in state and local government
welfare spending over the past 48 years, "the poverty rate never
fell below 10.5 percent and is now at the highest level in nearly a
decade." (15.1 percent in 2012 and rising). As Tanner says,
"Clearly, we have been doing something wrong."


To add to the “something wrong” theme, Keith
Koffler’s article
is a good read. He states that Obama is creating his own “War On
Poverty” by increasing welfare spending to about 25 percent of GDP,
implementing his “ObamaCare,” and (what he calls) investing in new technologies.
Koffler states, “All while running up the deficit to new records.
At least Lyndon Johnson did Socialism in the absence of a roaring
deficit.” Koffler also says that, under Obama, the poverty rate
for blacks has grown from 25.8 percent to 27.4 percent.


Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the US’s
"War On Poverty," with no end in sight. Sargent Shriver,
tasked to implement LBJ’s "War On Poverty," said in 1964
that 1976 would be "the target date for ending poverty in this
land." Well, that date has come and gone, yet poverty is still
with us. Can we consider the "War On Poverty" to be a
failure? Can we “move on?”


Democrats called upon President George W. Bush for
an exit strategy from Iraq. They were advised to make an exit
strategy
the number one post-2004 election issue.


Here’s what Harry Reid had to say
in 2005:


"The president needs to spell out a
real and understandable plan for the unfinished work ahead. Most of
all, we need an exit strategy so that we know what victory is
and how we can get there; so that we know what we need to do and so
that we know when the job is done."   [emphases
mine]

Ironic, isn’t it, that Reid’s comments apply just
as well to the "War On Poverty" as they do to the war in
Iraq.


And, in June 2005, none other than Nancy Pelosi
offered
the "Strategy For Success" amendment to H.R. 2863. The
amendment would have required President Bush to submit to Congress a
plan for success in Iraq and a withdrawal timetable. But the
amendment was defeated 223 to 200. See page CRS-15 for more
information.


And here’s what Joe Biden had to say
in 2006:


"By misrepresenting the facts,
misunderstanding Iraq, and leading the war effort badly, this
administration has brought us to the verge of a national-security
debacle."

Biden was speaking of George W. Bush’s handling of
the Iraq war. Substitute "War On Poverty" for "Iraq"
in Biden’s statement, and it equally applies to ALL Democrat
presidents and administrations, especially the national-security
part.


And here’s a little nugget
from Barry
R. Posen
in 2006:


"The United States needs a new
strategy in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. The war is at
best a stalemate
; the large American presence now causes
more trouble than it prevents
. We must disengage from Iraq – and
we must do it by removing most American and allied military units
within 18 months. Though disengagement has risks and costs, they can
be managed. The consequences would not be worse for the United
States than the present situation, and capabilities for dealing with
them are impressive, if properly employed."   [emphasis
mine]

Again, substitute "War On Poverty" for
"Iraq and the Persian Gulf" in Posen’s statement, and it
equally applies to ALL Democrat presidents and administrations.


Here is a quote
from Bush in 1999 that Democrats are fond of marching out:


"Victory means exit strategy, and
it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit
strategy is."

Well, Democrats, that quote cuts both ways. Does
the fact that no exit strategy has been proposed mean that there has
never been (nor will there ever be) a victory in the "War On
Poverty?"


Democrats have, for some reason, yet to call for
an exit strategy from the never ending "War On Poverty," a
war that has not been won, a war that has lasted longer (49 years
versus 8 years) and cost far more than the Iraq war ($15 trillion
versus $811 billion). So, the (rhetorical) question is, "Are
Democrats hypocrites?" They want an exit strategy from Bush,
but do not seem to want one for a war that one of their heroes
started.


Perhaps the Iraq war exit strategy Dear Leader
Barack Hussein Obama used could also work with the "War On
Poverty." Obama, in October 2011, declared the
Iraq war to be over, saying, "After nearly nine years, America’s
war in Iraq will be over."


Naaaaaaaaaaah! It will not work here. Obama’s
exit strategy will not be used in this country because declaring the
"War On Poverty" to be over will not garner any votes for
Democrats. And votes is ALL Democrats think about.


Why, then, don’t Republicans call for an exit
strategy from the "War On Poverty?" Too many RINOs in
Congress is the only reason I can think of. Why rock the boat when
it’s not necessary? Their view is that the good of the country be
damned, reelection is just too important. Moving on is just not
going to happen.






But that’s just my opinion.


Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Sick Of Hearing About Whitney Houston

Whitney Houston sadly died an early death due to drug and alcohol abuse. A very gifted singer has died much too early due to her own behavior, but we can’t let it go at that. Now, all of a sudden we get a touching call from a multi-millionaire “Hollywood elite” for the government to take my tax money and stop drug addiction. One of the “rich and famous” abuses herself to death and I get to pay for the heartaches of her friends. I have two separate problems with this attitude.

The Blaze.com ran a story about the sorrow over the death of Whitney Houston and the touching item written by Jamie Lee Curtis in the Huffington Post. That is great that she says nice things about her friend, but stop there. Jamie Lee, express your condolences for yourself and let it go at that. After saying nice things she started in on Obama to “do something”. In “rich and famous” lingo that is take the money from the serfs to solve a problem.

How many millions of dollars does Jamie Lee Curtis have? How many millions of dollars does Michael Moore have? How any millions of dollars do Sean Penn and Danny Glover have? If Jamie Lee Curtis, or any of the rest of them want something done about drug addiction among their peers ,why don’t they give all of THEIR millions to solve this issue among the “rich and famous”? Why should Curtis live among the “Top 1%” and tell Obama to take my hard earned money and give it to the Whitney Houston’s of the country? I wonder why the OWS occutards are protesting in Oakland and burning their own city down when they could actually go burn the homes of the real 1%’ers in Hollywood.

Jamie Lee, it isn’t your money you are crusading with, it is mine. I am among the lower income range but still pay income taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, along with every other tax to support a “War on Drugs” that has been going on for 50 years with nothing to show for it but billions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet of feel good projects like this one you demand. After all these years of taking my money for your touchy feely causes I am broke, our nation is broke; but your kind can still live life like it doesn’t cost anything. You can hide your money in various shelters, I can’t. It does cost for my family to live, and it costs a lot at our income range.
When are the bleeding hearts of this nation going to actually do something to help this great nation that has made them hundreds of millions of dollars and allowed them a lifestyle not even remotely possible for most of the citizens of America. Talk about out of touch with reality!!! The “rich and famous” always come out of the woodwork when an actor, singer, or whatever dies tragically and begin demanding the government do something about social issues among their peers. Do they actually NEED the welfare from me and my kind? When I believe in a cause, and can afford to, I donate to it. But it is my money I give, not someone else’s money.

I have also noticed many of the bleeding-heart 1%’ers showing up at various “Occupy” events stirring up hatred for the “rich”. It is sad that the occutards aren’t smart enough to realize that they are being egged on by some of the richest people in America. The occutards want my tax money to pay for everything they want and the uber-rich want my tax money to pay for all of their “heartfelt causes”. There isn’t any need to leave anything for my family to live on. We are expected to give everything we have and just go demand something from government like they do.

Now we have Jamie Lee Curtis putting on a sob story about a person who had everything, looks, voice, career, hundreds of millions of dollars, and mobs of adoring fans. And what did this super-star do with her life? Died in a bathtub in a drug and alcohol induced stupor. Why is it suddenly the responsibility of the government to “do something”? Why don’t all of these “caring” Hollywood types get out of their mansions, jet planes, and stretch limos at “gala” events; and pay for some of this themselves?

It is so easy for the ivory tower sitters in Washington D C and Hollywood to sit in their palaces and tell me where my meager income should be spent, but I notice they don’t do much more than tell me how they need to use my hard earned money. Personal responsibility has to come into the mix somewhere or it is a lost cause. The reason the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Poverty” don’t work is that there is no personal responsibility expected. Just call them diseased animals and require that I pay for their upkeep. If you want a memorial to Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, or any other entertainer, provide it yourself because I don’t care about them, they had more than enough to live a grand life but they abused themselves into an early death. You want something done, do it with your money and leave mine alone.

As for me, I would rather spend my money to protect the borders of this nation; to help the families of soldiers lost in battle; to provide the medical needs of wounded warriors, and to help those truly in need and willing to help themselves. Use my tax money for these righteous purposes to help those who aren’t among the wealthiest. Don’t take my tax money and give it to an industry known for drug and alcohol abuse, physical abuse of spouses, adultery, and overall demonic behavior. Don’t make some grand speech about the “horror of drug addiction” and direct Obama to my wallet.

There is help out there for those who truly want to be delivered from their addictions. Personal responsibility is the key to cure, not money. For those who are willing to work and do what is necessary to recover, I am with them. For those who just want to throw money at a problem without the key ingredient, I am not with them. You can’t make sugar cookies without sugar and you can’t overcome any issue without the desire, the drive, and the willingness to do what is required to be successful.

So to Jamie Lee Curtis and all the other hoot owls out there who demand the government confiscate my money for their “cause”, Zip it and leave my money alone. Do whatever you wish with your money and let me spend what little I have as I wish.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
February 16, 2012