Reply #6: Gonna need some support for those assertions

[zipplewrath]

"It kept couples apart,"

The only thing that "kept couples apart" was the insistence of the right wing that it not support unmarried couples. Alternately, even with married couples, there were conservative concerns that the husband was "not contributing" or somehow "joy riding" on some child/mother focused assistance program. Don't blame "welfare" for that, blame the conservatives that constantly tried to change the focus and purpose of the efforts.

"and in too many cases, made welfare a permanent way of life."

"It" didn't make "welfare" a permanent way of life. Another right wing talking point. All manner of economic factors made welfare a very long term need in some peoples lives. However, the vast majority of folks didn't spend long on "welfare". If there was a larger problem it was the multi generational nature of assistance programs, which again spoke to some economic realities.

There was no program called "welfare". It was a right wing/conservative term (a bit like "partial birth abortion") which referred to a wide variety of social assistance programs that include WIC, Food Stamps, SSI, AfDC, and others. Those programs were wildly successful, if measured against their original purpose. Their original purpose was to address the symptoms of poverty. It was the right wing that morphed their purpose into some how "Ending" poverty. You'll never "end" poverty, especially in any sort of marginal capitalistic system. Heck, even most socialistic or communistic systems there is poverty. But you can address the symptoms of poverty and then also work towards getting people to be more economically self sufficient.

But it is not "easy" by any stretch. By the time someone comes "into the system", they are already so far behind the eight ball it is going to take YEARS to get them to some sort of economic stability. Until then, they will subject to all of the worst of our economic system. They'll be some of the first to get laid off in down turns. They'll be the ones least likely to deal with severe or chronic disease. They will need years to get through education/job training including any of the intern/apprentice/entry level phase that many jobs will need or expect.

Prior to Clinton, there was job training, subsidized housing, and occasionally childcare. What there was NOT, and it was because the right wing threw a living fit, was any sort of concerted effort to provide all three in a coordinated fashion. Child care is not cheap, and can easily overwhelm the local markets if the government steps in and offers child care assistance to the large numbers of people in urban areas that might qualify. Job training sounds good, but it can take a year or more, and the reality is that you'll have trouble getting that many JOBS that fast, even if you can find that much training, that fast. As for subsidized housing, the NIMBY's are very good at preventing them from being placed where they need to be, and we discovered the hard way that warehousing these folks in large government apartments is not the best plan.

The Great Society Worked. What didn't work was the conservative, trickle down, economic theories that somehow in a capitalistic system where we supposedly reward "winners", wouldn't also produce "losers".

Food Stamps (which actually predates the Great Society) basically wiped out malnutrition as a cause of death in this country. Social Security and Unions virtually created the "retired middle class". WIC, AfDC, SSI, and school lunch programs were all very successful when measured against the symptoms they were intended to address. Don't get sucked into the right wing talking points about how they didn't solve all the problems that the right wing wanted them to solve. They were never intended to "wipe out" poverty. THAT was suppose to be handled by trickle down. How'd that work out?