3 ms·
> For that one I wasn't too familiar but quickly looked it up and didn't see anyone claiming success: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty https://en.wi
by steego 8y ago
> For that one I wasn't too familiar but quickly looked it up and didn't see anyone claiming success: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty
Think about it. The "War on Poverty" was Lyndon Johnson's campaign to expand Roosevelt's New Deal. Does that sound like something that would prosper under the Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton (consider the congress), and Bush Jr administrations? Unlike the "War on Drugs", which was actually a never-ending boondoggle that received ample bi-partisan and financial support, Johnson's programs were in the political cross-hairs since day one.
In other words, these two programs were failures for very different reasons. The comparison of the "War on Drugs" to the "War on Poverty" is incredibly superficial insofar as the only real thing they have in common are their names.
- nonbel 8y ago>"the only real thing they have in common are their names." They are names for efforts by the US government to achieve some goal that it never achieves. I don't see what difference the detailed reasons for failure are, I am sure there are many.
- steego 8y agoSo what you're telling me is the reason for failure really isn't important. The fact that one program was championed for 40-50 years while the other one defunded and dismanteled is of no consequence. The real takeaway here is they were doomed to failure because the US government chose similar bad names. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯