Purpose The purpose of this discussion is to compare and contrast the values and assumptions of both Charles Murray and Lawrence Mead vis-a-vis Michael Harrington and William J. Wilson, specifically addressing poverty programs and the reasons for their failure during the 1960's and 1970's. Similarly, I shall address their underlying assumptions and values and how they are shared and how they differ. For example, Michael Harrington has been an outspoken critic of the failure of the 60's and 70's so-called war on poverty. Quite honestly, I believe that his treatise on The New American Poverty is not only insightful, but offers compassion as well. This is somewhat rare amongst the social scholarly elite who, for the most part, are concerned with facts and figures Ñ at least this has been my observation. Not to derogate the political scientists and economists as well as critics of our times, I find Harrington refreshingly knowledgeable, which he applies to strong usage regarding the plight of the poor and the underlying causes for failure of the so-called war on poverty. In fact, at one point in his treatise, he states that as we toured the mathematical maze, it became apparent that, relatively speaking, the aging poor get better care than anyone else under the poverty line. That is only one point in a larger case, which may be stated as follows: "The entire welfare state in the United States is primarily for people over 65, most of whom are not poor; and this welfare state is the cheapest in the Western world." Similarly, Harrington is not wanting for statistics, as he cites a 7.5% unemployment rate when Ronald Reagan took office in January of 1991, which rose to 10.8% by December of 1982. This is of atmospheric proportions and Harrington has some bitter remarks regarding what he calls the hardness of the middle class and its relationship towards human suffering.
             The purpose of this research paper will be to identify and access t
             ...