Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter
That only seems true, because our national sense for "poverty" includes people who are blessed with a pretty decent quality of life, thanks to our social saftey net--yet, technically, are considered impoverished as viewed through our nation's prism of privilege.
There is no question that a much smaller per centage Americans live in the abject poverty today (than did before the war on poverty) because as a society we've chosen to raise the standard. Whether we should do that...or not, is an entirely different argument though.
Comparing poverty in the 60s with poverty today though....is and apples and oranges comparison. And, yes, too many Democrats conveniently gloss over that fact. Perhaps, that is the discussion we should really be having--instead of the false dichotomy of maintaining the status quo (we can't afford it) versus a Draconian gutting of social programs (that the GOP wants.) FTR, that is the real discussion I think we should be having.
The simple middle ground is the answer. See my earlier post on HSA's. Why wasn't the logical completed?
The reason, I believe, is the Republicans enjoyed the perks of being courted by the insurance companies and the Democrats enjoy currying the votes of people who don't earn their amenities by painting those that have more as vicious ogres.