tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9827454.post113952628121158484..comments2023-10-23T12:23:54.134-05:00Comments on Larry James' Urban Daily: In Praise of Determined, but Weary TeachersLarry Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06124477733714017000noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9827454.post-1139699675062735292006-02-11T17:14:00.000-06:002006-02-11T17:14:00.000-06:00Anonymous, your friend is simply incorrect here. ...Anonymous, your friend is simply incorrect here. Poverty rates declined under Bill Clinton. They have risen dramatically under President Bush--a million annually for the past 4 years and more on the way! You are correct about the Johnson era--19% reduction in poverty and more would have come had it not been for the distraction of the war in SE Asia. <BR/><BR/>Government efforts can and do have an impact on poverty rates either negatively or positively.<BR/><BR/>If you look at the scale of the problems in any of the various areas, you will note that your friend's idea about churches picking up the slack is faniciful and nice, but simply impossible. You are likely right about what's under his argument: his own fear relative to his wallet. That fear is short-sighted and epidemic these days. The poor continue to suffer and grow in numbers.Larry Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06124477733714017000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9827454.post-1139643957624047702006-02-11T01:45:00.000-06:002006-02-11T01:45:00.000-06:00I got in a debate today about this very issue of p...I got in a debate today about this very issue of poverty. My opponent (friend, really, but opponent here) held up that poverty rates have remained relatively set around 12% regardless of the administration in office. He said this proved that "social programs don't have an effect." I disagreed, citing some of the poverty stats from prior to LBJ (around 19% in '64, I think) and some recent data about how many more people are on the poverty roles now that prior to Bush.<BR/><BR/>Larry, what do you say to people who claim that there cannot be an effective federal response to poverty? This fellow's particular argument was that churches should respond to the poor, that government's role is mainly to maintain a big military (and, it seems, keep their tax-hands out of his wallet). I disagreed for a variety of reasons, but would love to hear your take.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9827454.post-1139529233564416242006-02-09T17:53:00.000-06:002006-02-09T17:53:00.000-06:00Thank you, thank you, thank you! I am in a second...Thank you, thank you, thank you! I am in a second grade classroom in a Title 1 school. You are so right!paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16691411195843289455noreply@blogger.com