Skip to comments.50 Years Later, War on Poverty Is a Mixed Bag (NY Times Painful Admission)
Posted on 01/05/2014 7:30:05 AM PST by Titus-Maximus
WASHINGTON To many Americans, the war on poverty declared 50 years ago by President Lyndon B. Johnson has largely failed. 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. But looked at a different way, the federal government has succeeded in preventing the poverty rate from climbing far higher. There is broad consensus that the social welfare programs created since the New Deal have hugely improved living conditions for low-income Americans. At the same time, in recent decades, most of the gains from the private economy have gone to those at the top of the income ladder. Half a century after Mr. Johnsons now-famed State of the Union address, the debate over the governments role in creating opportunity and ending deprivation has flared anew, with inequality as acute as it was in the Roaring Twenties and the ranks of the poor and near-poor at record highs. Programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps are keeping millions of families afloat. Republicans have sought to cut both programs, an illustration of the intense disagreement between the two political parties over the best solutions for bringing down the poverty rate as quickly as possible, or eliminating it. For poverty to decrease, the low-wage labor market needs to improve, James P. Ziliak of the University of Kentucky said. We need strong economic growth with gains widely distributed. If the private labor market wont step up to the plate, were going to have to strengthen programs to help these people get by and survive.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If governments could create a utopia by writing words on a piece of paper we would already be living in one. In fact, when they do try to create utopia, people inevitably go backwards and their lives are further impoverished.
We have spent trillions on the War on Poverty, and the problem is worse. How is it that we are going backwards? What has been the return on the investment? (I know liberals don't care about return, except if it is their own portfolio! Then Mike Moore buys Halliburton stock!)
"Universal Pre-K" is now the watchword of today's sheisskoph liberal utopia making. We will tax the wealthy to pay for Pre-K and all our urban problems will be solved. Grades will increase, crime and drugs will stop, the gangs will go away, cholesterol and sodium levels will go down and new clean industries will form. Damn, why didn't we think of Universal Pre-K the last time we raised taxes.
New Jersey has spent over 40 billion by taking the property taxes of regular communities to throw into inner city schools in 31 districts like Newark and Camden. The NJ Supreme Court in the 1985 Abbott decision blamed racism and poverty, and 4 decades later, and after the highest property taxes in the country, not one grade is improved. It was a complete and utter waste of money. Thank the liberals, everything they touch, turns to sheiss. As a matter of fact, in 1997 a subsequent decision included Universal Pre-K in New Jersey Abbott Districts and this didn't accomplish anything.
When 90% of inner city babies are born without a father figure in the home, there is no amount of money that is going to fix that problem. Most likely, drugs, crime, violence and lack of education will follow like day follows night. But liberals just don't get it. They burn money and make problems worse. No concept of return on investment.
Look at the conditions in Appalachia in the 1950s. Do people still live like that? NO. The type of poverty that caused a "War" to be declared no longer exists in America. The war has been won.
But, the politicians can't declare victory, because that would mean that many of them would be out of a job. Therefore, there will always be a war on poverty in the US.
New report debunks narrative on income inequality
The Latest News on Tax Fairness-top 20%’s share up, everyone else’s share down over last 30 years
If fairness in paying taxes means the amount you pay is based on the amount you make, then the only group in America paying at least a “fair share” is the top 20%people who make more than $74,000. For everyone else, the tax code is a bargain.
Their goal: “Poverty for all, just not me”.
The War on Poverty is over. Poverty won.
Their goal: Poverty for all, just not me.
Yup, the spread the poverty program.
When you define “poverty” as the lowest quintile of household incomes you will always have about 20% of households in poverty.
“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.”
How about looking at it from the income PLUS benefits point of view. To do that we would have less than 1% anywhere near poverty.
It's not a war on poverty, it's extracting money from those that work their asses off and giving it to those who sit on their asses.
Very true. These stats on poverty ignore things like the EITC, SNAP, subsidized childcare, reduced utility bills, reduced phone bills and subsidized housing.
Some people just can't handle living in a First World civilization and they end up creating Third World conditions around them. We call that poverty but its not really about the lack of money.
For example back when this country was founded no one had a car, refrigerator, electricity, or indoor plumbing. The homes were primitive. The medical care was even less advanced. They had to grow their own food. Their incomes were extremely small.
But they were an educated, religious, civilized, friendly people. They were self employed and self sustaining. They were poor in today's monetary sense but not impoverished in fact they were prosperous.
The important facts of this long-winded article are found in the last two sentences. 3% of those working are in trouble. 33% of those NOT WORKING are in trouble.
The War On Poverty has been going on for fifty years and has cost American taxpayers $17,000,000,000,000. The only reason you would have a “war” go on this long is if someone or some group is making money off of it. The poor do get some benefit from it, but the last two sentences in the New York Times article proves that providing jobs is much more important than providing welfare. That is, if you truly care about the poor. So, who is profiting from the poor? Do the poor vote Republican? Nope. The poor vote for the Democrats. It is the Democrats who benefit from having a large number of poor Americans. It is in the best interest of the Democrat party to maintain a large population of people WHO BELIEVE THEY ARE POOR in America. The liberals yammer about the “war profiteers”, but they are the war profiteers in this baloney known as The War On Poverty.
But by increasing the income level in the quintile you can shrink the quintile to only 5 or 10%.
"A word means exactly what I mean it to mean, neither more or less!"
"I don't understand, socialism should have worked!"
The first thing that needs to be done to improve the economic situation in the United States is a top-to-bottom review of every rule, regulation, law and government agency. Government employees CONSUME tax money. Private sector employees PRODUCE tax money. Every rule, regulation and law requires a government employee to administer and enforce it. This increases the requirement for more tax money to consume. This requires the private sector businesses and employees to provide more money to the government, which, in turn, leaves the private sector less money to reinvest in the private sector. The government is strangling research, development and productivity in the private sector. This leaves us vulnerable to international competition.
Mr. Ziliak has a somewhat limited understanding of the real issue. Let's walk through this one more time.
Government taxes and regulations are pervasive, and inevitably drive costs in business that make everything more expensive for everyone. Taxes and regulations also make it less desirable for employers to hire, and make it difficult for them to pay more when they are so inclined and when it makes economic sense (as opposed to shielding the business owner from regulation).
Under those conditions, those at the bottom of the employment ladder are hit in two ways. First, everything becomes more expensive and thereby less affordable on what they make. Second, they are less likely to find a job, even at the entry level because employers are reluctant or unable to hire. Given that taxes and regulation impede growth, it is also less likely that these bottom level employees can move up and make more money, as the businesses they work for aren't growing to any degree.
What Mr. Ziliak is proposing at the end of his statement is more government programs to mitigate a problem that government caused. He should run for office.
As American businesses are freed-up from the spiderweb of innumerable rules, regulations and laws, they can expand and hire more employees. These employees produce tax money which means the government will have to borrow less money. American government has grown to be fat and bloated. Trim down the government and the economy starts growing which provides more jobs which provide more tax money which means the government borrows less money and so on and so on. Our international enemies never had to militarily defeat us. They just had to have our politicians produce more rules, regulations, laws and government agencies to choke us to death.
1964. Lyndon Johnson and his Democrat senate and house.
Welfare broke the back of the black family.
But we have geniuses in colleges like Michelle Alexander, who wrote, “The New Jim Crow” and blames Reagan and a grand conspiracy for keeping black men in the prison system and that is why they are the remaining underclass. Unbelievable.
“The War on Poverty is over. Poverty won.”
A friend of mine, a physicist and a socialist, summed up his support for welfare in this way: “Let’s face it. Fifteen percent of the population just aren’t able to get their sh!t together.”
I hate it, but I have to agree with him.
If we shield that 15% from the consequences of their poor decisions will their behavior ever change? The problem with welfare is we remove the incentive to change and improve. Under welfare there is no downside to being a screwup.
Mixed bag? It’s a dogs breakfast! It’s the contents of a barf bag.
It ended a long time ago....Poverty won.
That is true, but then what is the solution? Is it to keep on subsidizing this ever-increasing group of Americans who do not have the intellectual wherewithal to contribute to society, or can we do something about these leeches?
Or more clearly stated, do we have the guts to do what's right? That would involve separation and sterilization leading to the eventual elimination of this parasite class of Americans who cost the country half of a trillion in terms of welfare, crime prevention, disease, and incompetence in jobs taken from more qualified people thanks to affirmative action/discrimination.
I should add that the cost is half a trillion annually. The real cost might be higher.
When de Toqueville toured the USA in 1831, he observed that, despite the universal opportunity presented by open land and a free market, approximately one in seven households instead chose to live in poverty and squalor.
From that time forward, the proportion of households making this perverse choice is fundamentally unchanged. Those living in involuntary poverty come and go from the statistics, but the core group remains mired in the swamp -- having found it easier to live on the dole than to work their way out of it.
Accordingly, the problem isn't defined by a "lack of opportunity", it's "human nature".
Looked at in an honest way, Poverty of Character has, indeed, climbed much higher.
The Times has sunk to making this argument:
Q: Why do you have that strange pendant around your neck?
A: It keeps tigers away.
Q: Tigers? There aren't any tigers around here!
A: See how well it works? :)
If only we had more government programs, higher taxes, and a surge in the war on poverty we could eliminate poverty. never mind we have the fattest poor in the world with automobiles, electricity, running water, multiple cell phones, multiple TVs, cable, education, food, health care, and most of it is free.
If only someone would run the country on “hope.” “Hope in one hand and [deficate] in the other, guess which one fills up first”