50 Years Later, War on Poverty Is a Mixed Bag (NY Times Painful Admission)

NY Times ^ | Jan 4, 2014 | Annie Lowrey

[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.”

[Senator_Blutarski]

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.

[RicocheT]

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

[dfwgator]

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

[driftless2]

"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.

[driftless2]

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

[okie01]

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".

[Mr. Jeeves]

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? :)

[Organic Panic]

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”