from article
it seems the 'war on poverty' (below quote) rapidly turned into 'war on the poor'
---
Fifty years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson made a move that was unprecedented at the time and remains unmatched by succeeding administrations. He announced a War on Poverty, saying that its “chief weapons” would be “better schools, and better health, and better homes, and better training, and better job opportunities.”
So starting in 1964 and for almost a decade, the federal government poured at least some of its resources in the direction they should have been going all along: toward those who were most in need. Longstanding programs like Head Start, Legal Services, and the Job Corps were created. Medicaid was established. Poverty among seniors was significantly reduced by improvements in Social Security.
---
I never saw how 'investing in the group/population/team' came to be considered a bad idea by politicians and people
IF i pay for part of your vaccine or healthcare, you will not spread this disease, making it less likely i have to pay for long term treatment for someone who can't take the vaccine or let a disease go too far due to lack of affordable healthcare.
IF i help pay for your education, you can get a better job, possibly create more jobs, pay more taxes, and thus make my tax burden less and my chances for a better job better.
Some poverty (i'd actually prefer to call this 'overly debted' or 'overly consumerismed') is poor choices (and i hate to say it especially since i'm _almost_ violating rules i helped set in this group ) but if one used to make $100 000 , and then get downsized to $40 000, some lifestyle choices are going to have to be made, and fast or poverty will result.
or making the $100 000 and spending $80 000 on trips, toys, gadgets and similar, again not best of choices
i think the last two examples are rare, they just very vocal about how it's not fair to them
let the flaming of me begin :-/
= new reply since forum marked as read