Lyndon Johnson's War On Poverty

In January of 1964, Lyndon Johnson declared an unconditional “War on Poverty.” Johnson did not really want to improve living conditions through a welfare state. Instead, his goal was to “not only relieve the symptoms of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.” He wanted people to be able to support themselves and bring themselves out of poverty. He focused on education and job skills, so that people could help themselves. He wanted to make “taxpayers out of taxeaters.” If this was his original goal, the war on poverty has been a total failure. Even if his goal was just to raise the standard of living and reduce poverty, this “war” has been a failure in that regard as well. Over the last fifty years, the government has spent …show more content…
It appeared that Johnson’s programs were working. From 1965 to 1979 the poverty rates went down about 4-5%. However, this should not be accredited to Johnson’s policies. From 1959 to 1964, the poverty rate had already been decreasing. This was before the official “War on Poverty” had even begun. This makes you wonder if the decrease would have continued even without government intervention and spending. The poverty rate’s decrease from both 1959-1964 and 1965-1979 can be attributed the rise of wages and increased levels of education. The increased education and wages led to increased self-sufficiency. This was why Johnson’s policies appeared to be working. However, in 1970, self-sufficiency began to decrease, and the poverty rate began to go back up. Interestingly, since 1972, the poverty rate has seemingly fluctuated up and down with changes in the overall economy. Specifically, the poverty rate drops several percent when there is general economic prosperity, and then goes back up when the economy slows. In general, for the past 45-50 years, the course of poverty has been steady or slightly …show more content…
The Return on Investment of the $22 trillion dollars spent on the “War on Poverty” is almost nothing. However, to temporarily help someone get back on their feet, while they look for a job is a good idea. Also, to help someone who is elderly or physically unable to work and provide for themselves should be encouraged. After all, the Bible teaches us to take care of the poor, sick, orphaned, and widowed. Psalm 82: 3-4 says “Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” The poor were close to Jesus’s heart, and He said whatever you do for the least of these you do for me. Therefore, we should love and take care of the poor. However, even Paul said “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” The Bible encourages helping the poor, but does not encourage idleness. For the Least of a These: A Biblical Answer to Poverty makes a very good point, “In the past, Americans- both rich and poor-were known for having a can-do, never give up attitude. Now the poor benefit from saying cannot do and never-start up. In the past Americans were sometimes known for bragging; we tried to seem better than we are. Now we have incentives to seem worse than we are.” This problem comes mainly from the “War on Poverty,” and a decrease in