1. "News that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1
percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly
a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls
for increased government spending on social
welfare programs. Yet this year the federal
government will spend more than $668 billion on at
least 126 different programs to fight poverty.
And that does not even begin to count welfare
spending by state and local governments, which
adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the
United States spends nearly $1 trillion every
year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per
poor family of three.
2. In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15
trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the
poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
3. Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.
4. Since 1964 the federal government spent roughly $12 trillion fighting
poverty, and state and local governments
added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty
rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now
at the highest level in nearly a decade.
5. ...federal welfare spending alone totals more than $14,848 for every poor man,
woman, and child in this country. For a typical poor family of three, that amounts to
more than $44,500. Combined with state and
local spending, government spends $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830
per poor family of three. Given that the poverty line for that family is just $18,530, we
should have theoretically wiped out poverty
in America many times over.
6. . the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising
welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996).
7. The vast majority of current programs are focused
on making poverty more comfortablegiving poor people more food, better shelter,
health care, and so forthrather than giving
people the tools that will help them escape
poverty. And we actually have a pretty solid
idea of the keys to getting out of and staying
out of poverty: (1) finish school; (2) do not
get pregnant outside marriage; and (3) get a
job, any job, and stick with it.
a. ...we can add one more important stepping stone on
the road out of povertysavings and the accumulation of wealth.
... for the vast majority of households,
the pathway out of poverty is not through
consumption, but through saving and accumulation.
Michael Sherraden, Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1991)."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf
Scribd
Again:
"only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility,"
So....conservatives were right....
The choice in November is clear.
percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly
a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls
for increased government spending on social
welfare programs. Yet this year the federal
government will spend more than $668 billion on at
least 126 different programs to fight poverty.
And that does not even begin to count welfare
spending by state and local governments, which
adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the
United States spends nearly $1 trillion every
year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per
poor family of three.
2. In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15
trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the
poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
3. Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.
4. Since 1964 the federal government spent roughly $12 trillion fighting
poverty, and state and local governments
added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty
rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now
at the highest level in nearly a decade.
5. ...federal welfare spending alone totals more than $14,848 for every poor man,
woman, and child in this country. For a typical poor family of three, that amounts to
more than $44,500. Combined with state and
local spending, government spends $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830
per poor family of three. Given that the poverty line for that family is just $18,530, we
should have theoretically wiped out poverty
in America many times over.
6. . the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising
welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996).
7. The vast majority of current programs are focused
on making poverty more comfortablegiving poor people more food, better shelter,
health care, and so forthrather than giving
people the tools that will help them escape
poverty. And we actually have a pretty solid
idea of the keys to getting out of and staying
out of poverty: (1) finish school; (2) do not
get pregnant outside marriage; and (3) get a
job, any job, and stick with it.
a. ...we can add one more important stepping stone on
the road out of povertysavings and the accumulation of wealth.
... for the vast majority of households,
the pathway out of poverty is not through
consumption, but through saving and accumulation.
Michael Sherraden, Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1991)."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf
Scribd
Again:
"only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility,"
So....conservatives were right....
The choice in November is clear.
