"The poverty rate has fallen only to 15 percent from 19 percent in two generations, and 46 million Americans live in households where the government considers their income scarcely adequate." Annie Lowery laid out the harsh truth about the progress of the war on poverty since Lyndon B. Johnson declared the war 50 years ago. The poor are at a record high and many are using government programs such as food stamps just to get by. It has been greatly argued that programs to help the poor are only making the problem worse instead of eliminating it. Republicans would rather spend money to create opportunities and jobs for less-fortunate people, while Democrats believe in creating more safety nets for the poor. However, even though things seem to still be bad, there are many indicators that show things have improved. Malnutrition has almost completely vanished, the number of college graduates continues to increase exponentially, and infant mortality rates have dropped. Lowery uses detailed research and multiple sources to help convey her point. She is a credible source since she is not biased and shows both sides of the argument. By giving the Democratic and Republican views on poverty, she takes a neutral stance which allows the reader to decide for themselves whose right. The tone and language she uses throughout her article make it easy to understand, while still being very professional. It made it pleasant to read and was educational to someone who doesn't have a very detailed knowledge of the war on poverty.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/50-years-later-war-on-poverty-is-a-mixed-bag.html?_r=0
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on this subject, because I read the same article and you are very right on the subject of neutrality. She gives both sides and has little bias on the subject for herself. Which is really awesome as a reader trying to learn the background and pick his or her own side. The actual term war on poverty means something different to me after reading the neutral argument. Instead of trying to sway me to one side I got to pick my own, and I think it means more than just your political party. From my background I have been in a situation that needed safety nets but if we would have had opportunities then my family could have left them easier. So I think war on poverty should be a good mix of the two. So in reality I am also neutral on the subject there just needs to be a better cohesion of how they should both be applied.
ReplyDelete