Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

50 Years Later, War on Poverty Is a Mixed Bag (NY Times Painful Admission)
NY Times ^ | Jan 4, 2014 | Annie Lowrey

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. Johnson’s now-famed State of the Union address, the debate over the government’s 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 won’t step up to the plate, we’re going to have to strengthen programs to help these people get by and survive.”

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: greatsociety
It's the Economy, Stupid! That is what creates jobs.

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.

1 posted on 01/05/2014 7:30:05 AM PST by Titus-Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus
What is "poverty?" It seems to be the lowest 15-20% of the population, no matter what their true economic condition. Many people living at poverty level in the US would be considered at least Middle Class in many countries around the world.

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.

2 posted on 01/05/2014 7:39:24 AM PST by Cowboy Bob (They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus

New report debunks narrative on income inequality
http://www.laffercenter.com/2012/07/lefts-dubious-history-income-inequality/

The Latest News on Tax Fairness-top 20%’s share up, everyone else’s share down over last 30 years
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444873204577537250318931044.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

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.


3 posted on 01/05/2014 7:40:45 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus

Their goal: “Poverty for all, just not me”.


4 posted on 01/05/2014 7:43:21 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus

The War on Poverty is over. Poverty won.


5 posted on 01/05/2014 7:47:48 AM PST by MAexile (Bats left, votes right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

Their goal: “Poverty for all, just not me”.

Yup, the spread the poverty program.


6 posted on 01/05/2014 7:48:43 AM PST by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

When you define “poverty” as the lowest quintile of household incomes you will always have about 20% of households in poverty.


7 posted on 01/05/2014 7:49:55 AM PST by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus

“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.


8 posted on 01/05/2014 7:50:29 AM PST by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus
We have the richest poor people in the world.

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.

9 posted on 01/05/2014 7:55:46 AM PST by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

Very true. These stats on poverty ignore things like the EITC, SNAP, subsidized childcare, reduced utility bills, reduced phone bills and subsidized housing.


10 posted on 01/05/2014 8:02:26 AM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus
Economic poverty has been vanquished. What remains is cultural poverty, poverty of character, and poverty of intelligence. You can't fix those things, not with all the money in the world.

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.

11 posted on 01/05/2014 8:05:44 AM PST by Count of Monte Fisto (The foundation of modern society is the denial of reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus

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.


12 posted on 01/05/2014 8:07:40 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus

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.


13 posted on 01/05/2014 8:20:18 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reg45
When you define “poverty” as the lowest quintile of household incomes you will always have about 20% of households in 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!"

14 posted on 01/05/2014 8:32:13 AM PST by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus

"I don't understand, socialism should have worked!"

15 posted on 01/05/2014 8:36:31 AM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus

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.


16 posted on 01/05/2014 8:40:12 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus
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 won’t step up to the plate, we’re going to have to strengthen programs to help these people get by and survive.”

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.

17 posted on 01/05/2014 8:41:29 AM PST by Hardastarboard (The question of our age is whether a majority of Americans can and will vote us all into slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

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.


18 posted on 01/05/2014 8:49:31 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus

1964. Lyndon Johnson and his Democrat senate and house.
Welfare broke the back of the black family.
Continues today.
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.


19 posted on 01/05/2014 9:13:30 AM PST by CincyRichieRich (Pajama-boy-in-chief's beatings continue until morale improves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MAexile

“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.


20 posted on 01/05/2014 9:49:42 AM PST by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten
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.

21 posted on 01/05/2014 10:41:11 AM PST by Senator_Blutarski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

Mixed bag? It’s a dogs breakfast! It’s the contents of a barf bag.


22 posted on 01/05/2014 10:47:32 AM PST by RicocheT (Where neither their property nor their honor is touched, most men live content, Niccolo Machiavelli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus

It ended a long time ago....Poverty won.


23 posted on 01/05/2014 10:47:58 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten
"fifteen percent"

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.

24 posted on 01/05/2014 11:32:16 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

I should add that the cost is half a trillion annually. The real cost might be higher.


25 posted on 01/05/2014 11:42:55 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: reg45
When you define “poverty” as the lowest quintile of household incomes you will always have about 20% of households in poverty.

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".

26 posted on 01/05/2014 12:17:26 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media -- IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus
But looked at a different way, the federal government has succeeded in preventing the poverty rate from climbing far higher.

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? :)

27 posted on 01/05/2014 12:26:03 PM PST by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus

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”


28 posted on 01/05/2014 2:16:13 PM PST by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson