War On Poverty
This lady cross the street lives with her son. The lady and the boy weren’t rich or anything, she used food stamps to buy food for them. The boy needs to start school so she put him in Head Start. Over the years the little boy became very successful and kept up with all the other students. He even got higher scores than his other classmates. Americans in Poverty that use Head Start and food stamps have better education and are healthier. Americans also live a more productive life due to the use of food stamps and all the programs the government offers. The United States should not end the War on Poverty because it boosts the chances for all the Americans and with the help of government programs the children will become more successful and healthier.
…show more content…
According to Martha J. Bailey in the article YES, “The original War on Poverty aimed to increase opportunities for all Americans” (Bailey 1). As an example, the Americans would get an opportunity to become successful in life and not have to be in Poverty for long. Another reason why the United States shouldn’t end the War on Poverty is because with the help of government programs the children will become more successful and healthier. In the article YES by Martha J. Bailey, “Research shows that the children who used programs like Head Start and food stamps during the 1960s grew up to become healthier and more successful: They have lower rates of obesity and diabetes, they tend to be better educated, and they earn higher wages” (Bailey 1). Eventually, children will grow up with equal knowledge than the other kids in school who don’t live in Poverty. They will become more healthier because the government provides them with enough money to buy food. There are some people who feel that we should end the War on Poverty. According to Martha J. Bailey, “In fact, since the first War on Poverty began in 1964, the government has spent more than $16 trillion fighting for Poverty. But the Poverty rate- 17 percent in 1965 and 14.5 percent how- hasn’t changed much” (Tanner 1). Looking at the evidence it can clearly be seen that that ending the War on Poverty would not be a smart idea because the children would not be as healthy and would not be able to go to public schools like Head
According to Martha J. Bailey in the article YES, “The original War on Poverty aimed to increase opportunities for all Americans” (Bailey 1). As an example, the Americans would get an opportunity to become successful in life and not have to be in Poverty for long. Another reason why the United States shouldn’t end the War on Poverty is because with the help of government programs the children will become more successful and healthier. In the article YES by Martha J. Bailey, “Research shows that the children who used programs like Head Start and food stamps during the 1960s grew up to become healthier and more successful: They have lower rates of obesity and diabetes, they tend to be better educated, and they earn higher wages” (Bailey 1). Eventually, children will grow up with equal knowledge than the other kids in school who don’t live in Poverty. They will become more healthier because the government provides them with enough money to buy food. There are some people who feel that we should end the War on Poverty. According to Martha J. Bailey, “In fact, since the first War on Poverty began in 1964, the government has spent more than $16 trillion fighting for Poverty. But the Poverty rate- 17 percent in 1965 and 14.5 percent how- hasn’t changed much” (Tanner 1). Looking at the evidence it can clearly be seen that that ending the War on Poverty would not be a smart idea because the children would not be as healthy and would not be able to go to public schools like Head