poverty has been basically giving people money. where we have not succeeded is changing the economy to lift people out of poverty without government intervention. i think that s where conservatives object. i think they see the democratic anti-poverty program as basically being a program of take money from some people and giving it to other people without requiring them to work more. i think that s a mistake in approach. but i think we could broaden out this conversation is to talk about how can we make changes to the economy so that wages rise faster so that the rewards to work are greater and so that non-government action does more to lift people out of poverty. i think there are a lot of policy areas that can do that, including intellectual property law and various other things. i think it s true that the idea of fighting poverty is about giving people money does reduce the size of the political coalition, but it s also limited us in the benefits that we ve given people. i think al
he launched this war on poverty, he specifically talked about urban areas and rural areas. don t forget, he came from a very poor rural area. he was from a home that had no food. that had little clothing. that didn t have proper heat, what have you. so he was thinking about poverty for all americans, not just inner cities, but rural areas and specifically mentioned appalachia. so when he launched this war on poverty, as i look at it now, it was a great vision that he carried out started by president kennedy. but he knew that this was the right thing to do. he knew what poverty was all about. and he was determined to make a connection with all of the naysayer who thought that he was not liberal enough. so it was a remarkable address that i just listened to it one more time, because he really did attack poverty in this address, and all of the programs that
came out of that. as a matter of fact, i was in the head start program. i started as an assistant teacher in head start. and went back to school, god my degree, and went on to run for office. and a lot of us came out of that war on poverty in one way or the other. so now, yes, the war on poverty reduced poverty in america. still, it s too high. right now, those people who make about 23,492 are at the poverty line. and we have a problem with minimum wage. women are still behind, making only about 76% of what men make. and we ve got to create more real jobs. more jobs that pay a decent wage. we ve got work to do. but we can be thankful. just think where we would be if that war on poverty had not been launched. and congresswoman, why do you suppose that some of your red state colleagues, who come from these rural district where is poverty is also deep and in some cases widespread, think so differently about the
we re talking about, they re much more libertarian, much more unwilling to extend those kind of benefits. there s something interesting in the rhetoric of all these clips that we see over the last few years. there s a fundamental difference in how democrats and republicans talk about the people who are affected by the current recession. even when you see figures like john casich. it s always about what we can do for the poor. if you look at figures like elizabeth warren and bill deblasio, there s an extension of who s suffering. i think that s been pretty compelling c compelling. and a sense that people at the lower end of the spectrum are part of the economy. to your point, republicans discovered poverty, but for years, mcgillis writes republican voters have been hearing those leaders ridicule
panel, i wonder if one of these disconnects is that it s easier to sell policies that has to do with work and poverty itself. there are three justifications people use for social spending programs, because it s their right as citizens, because of their basic need for survival. generally programs that are seen as being rights given to all citizens or that are related to work are more widely embraced. they enjoy more funding and are enjoyed without being ststigma. when it s not specifically tied to work? i think there s that. i think the striking thing about those poverty stats changes from 1967 to present, literally 100% of the reduction on poverty is due to increases on spending. if kw so the success of the war on