Public Programs Keep Millions Out of Poverty

[Toro]

We assess the effectiveness of means-tested and social insurance programs in the United States. We show that per capita expenditures on these programs as a whole have grown over time but expenditures on some programs have declined. The benefit system in the U.S. has a major impact on poverty rates, reducing the percent poor in 2004 from 29 percent to 13.5 percent, estimates which are robust to different measures of the poverty line. We find that, while there are significant behavioral side effects of many programs, their aggregate impact is very small and does not affect the magnitude of the aggregate poverty impact of the system. The system reduces poverty the most for the disabled and the elderly and least for several groups among the non-elderly and non-disabled. Over time, we find that expenditures have shifted toward the disabled and the elderly, and away from those with the lowest incomes and toward those with higher incomes, with the consequence that post-transfer rates of deep poverty for some groups have increased. We conclude that the U.S. benefit system is paternalistic and tilted toward the support of the employed and toward groups with special needs and perceived deservingness.

An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Programs in the United States

With anti-poverty programs under serious attack in Washington, here’s something to keep in mind: a major new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) finds that public programs keep one in six Americans out of poverty — primarily the elderly, disabled, and working poor — and that the poverty rate would double without these programs.

Without the cash and non-cash income provided by programs such as Social Security, SNAP (formerly food stamps), and the Earned Income Tax Credit:

* The share of Americans below the poverty line in 2004 ($19,307 for a family of four) would have more than doubled, from 13.5 percent to 29 percent. That is, 45 million more Americans would have been poor.
* The share of Americans in “deep poverty,” with incomes below half the poverty line, would have more than tripled, to 21 percent.
* The share of Americans who are poor or near-poor, with incomes below one-and-a-half-times the poverty line, would have risen to about 40 percent.

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | Public Programs Keep Millions Out of Poverty, New Study Shows

 

[editec]

Oh they're IN POVERTY, they're just not suffering the consequences of it...yet.

 

[percysunshine]

The 'poverty level' is an arbitrary line which can be moved around at the convenience of the people who report the numbers.

 

[WillowTree]

We assess the effectiveness of means-tested and social insurance programs in the United States. We show that per capita expenditures on these programs as a whole have grown over time but expenditures on some programs have declined. The benefit system in the U.S. has a major impact on poverty rates, reducing the percent poor in 2004 from 29 percent to 13.5 percent, estimates which are robust to different measures of the poverty line. We find that, while there are significant behavioral side effects of many programs, their aggregate impact is very small and does not affect the magnitude of the aggregate poverty impact of the system. The system reduces poverty the most for the disabled and the elderly and least for several groups among the non-elderly and non-disabled. Over time, we find that expenditures have shifted toward the disabled and the elderly, and away from those with the lowest incomes and toward those with higher incomes, with the consequence that post-transfer rates of deep poverty for some groups have increased. We conclude that the U.S. benefit system is paternalistic and tilted toward the support of the employed and toward groups with special needs and perceived deservingness.

An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Programs in the United States

With anti-poverty programs under serious attack in Washington, here’s something to keep in mind: a major new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) finds that public programs keep one in six Americans out of poverty — primarily the elderly, disabled, and working poor — and that the poverty rate would double without these programs.

Without the cash and non-cash income provided by programs such as Social Security, SNAP (formerly food stamps), and the Earned Income Tax Credit:

* The share of Americans below the poverty line in 2004 ($19,307 for a family of four) would have more than doubled, from 13.5 percent to 29 percent. That is, 45 million more Americans would have been poor.
* The share of Americans in “deep poverty,” with incomes below half the poverty line, would have more than tripled, to 21 percent.
* The share of Americans who are poor or near-poor, with incomes below one-and-a-half-times the poverty line, would have risen to about 40 percent.

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | Public Programs Keep Millions Out of Poverty, New Study Shows

WE already knew that. Half of us work our asses off and pay FEderal Income Tax to support the other half.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is sad that so many here that consider themselves 'Christian' would prefer to see their fellow citizens starve than give them the minimal support that it takes to keep many of them above the poverty line. As for the 'get a job' yap-yap, we constantly see pictures of people lined up around the block for a couple of janitorial jobs paying minimum wages.

The people that are out of work in this economy did not create the present economic crisis. That was done at the top, by people that are still doing very well, thank you, when they should be doing hard time.

Yet people like Willow want to punish further those that are already hurting from this economy. And kiss the ass of the people that created the problems.

And, before you say it Willow, this old millwright is headed for another six figure year, if I don't retire first. So, without a doubt, I work harder than you do for what I get. And probably pay more taxes.

Given the state of the economy, I think that the taxes under Clinton should be re-instated, ASAP. And that would cost me more. But I would rather see that, and a good economy, than what we have today.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The most effective program, either public or private, to take a righteous bite out of poverty?




Education.

 

[California Girl]

It is sad that so many here that consider themselves 'Christian' would prefer to see their fellow citizens starve than give them the minimal support that it takes to keep many of them above the poverty line. As for the 'get a job' yap-yap, we constantly see pictures of people lined up around the block for a couple of janitorial jobs paying minimum wages.

The people that are out of work in this economy did not create the present economic crisis. That was done at the top, by people that are still doing very well, thank you, when they should be doing hard time.

Yet people like Willow want to punish further those that are already hurting from this economy. And kiss the ass of the people that created the problems.

And, before you say it Willow, this old millwright is headed for another six figure year, if I don't retire first. So, without a doubt, I work harder than you do for what I get. And probably pay more taxes.

Given the state of the economy, I think that the taxes under Clinton should be re-instated, ASAP. And that would cost me more. But I would rather see that, and a good economy, than what we have today.

Actually, as Christians, we like to help them to stand on their own two feet. There is no self respect without the ability to stand on your own feet. It you condescending lefties who want to keep poor people in poverty so they keep voting for your fucking corrupt politicians.

Decent, honest people would be ashamed to treat the poor the way the left do. They mean nothing to you... they are pawns on your chessboard of power games. I find that unAmerican and sickening.

 

[whitehall]

We assess the effectiveness of means-tested and social insurance programs in the United States. We show that per capita expenditures on these programs as a whole have grown over time but expenditures on some programs have declined. The benefit system in the U.S. has a major impact on poverty rates, reducing the percent poor in 2004 from 29 percent to 13.5 percent, estimates which are robust to different measures of the poverty line. We find that, while there are significant behavioral side effects of many programs, their aggregate impact is very small and does not affect the magnitude of the aggregate poverty impact of the system. The system reduces poverty the most for the disabled and the elderly and least for several groups among the non-elderly and non-disabled. Over time, we find that expenditures have shifted toward the disabled and the elderly, and away from those with the lowest incomes and toward those with higher incomes, with the consequence that post-transfer rates of deep poverty for some groups have increased. We conclude that the U.S. benefit system is paternalistic and tilted toward the support of the employed and toward groups with special needs and perceived deservingness.

An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Programs in the United States

With anti-poverty programs under serious attack in Washington, here’s something to keep in mind: a major new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) finds that public programs keep one in six Americans out of poverty — primarily the elderly, disabled, and working poor — and that the poverty rate would double without these programs.

Without the cash and non-cash income provided by programs such as Social Security, SNAP (formerly food stamps), and the Earned Income Tax Credit:

* The share of Americans below the poverty line in 2004 ($19,307 for a family of four) would have more than doubled, from 13.5 percent to 29 percent. That is, 45 million more Americans would have been poor.
* The share of Americans in “deep poverty,” with incomes below half the poverty line, would have more than tripled, to 21 percent.
* The share of Americans who are poor or near-poor, with incomes below one-and-a-half-times the poverty line, would have risen to about 40 percent.

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | Public Programs Keep Millions Out of Poverty, New Study Shows

Yeah, we heard all the slogans a hundred times. You forget the other side of the coin though. Public programs are a drain on the economy. When you confiscate money from one segment of society and give it back to another segment or the same segment of society it is a zero sum gain. When you factor in bureaucrats who can't tie their own shoes without an instruction manual who are running the programs you have a problem. I find it incredible that the zombies who follow the neo-socialist around have been convinced that corporations are the enemy of society and the Chamber of Commerce is a sinister tool of the capitalist dogs.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The National Bureau of Economic Research (the people who conducted this study) have an interesting policy concerning their research and who can get it for free.
The National Bureau of Economic Research

Information about Free Papers

You should expect a free download if you are a subscriber, a corporate associate of the NBER, a journalist, an employee of the U.S. federal government with a ".GOV" domain name, or a resident of nearly any developing country or transition economy.

 

[Samson]

The share of Americans below the poverty line in 2004 ($19,307 for a family of four) would have more than doubled, from 13.5 percent to 29 percent. That is, 45 million more Americans would have been poor.

By "Americans" I wonder if illegal immigrants were counted?

I wonder what the poverty line in Mexico was during 2004?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Public Programs Keep Millions Out of Poverty

I would argue that public programs keep millions in "poverty" as well.

 

[California Girl]

The National Bureau of Economic Research (the people who conducted this study) have an interesting policy concerning their research and who can get it for free.
The National Bureau of Economic Research

Information about Free Papers

You should expect a free download if you are a subscriber, a corporate associate of the NBER, a journalist, an employee of the U.S. federal government with a ".GOV" domain name, or a resident of nearly any developing country or transition economy.

It's paid for from taxpayers money, it's our fucking research. Why the fuck are they not allowing free access to everyone? Bastards!

 

[WillowTree]

It is sad that so many here that consider themselves 'Christian' would prefer to see their fellow citizens starve than give them the minimal support that it takes to keep many of them above the poverty line. As for the 'get a job' yap-yap, we constantly see pictures of people lined up around the block for a couple of janitorial jobs paying minimum wages.

The people that are out of work in this economy did not create the present economic crisis. That was done at the top, by people that are still doing very well, thank you, when they should be doing hard time.

Yet people like Willow want to punish further those that are already hurting from this economy. And kiss the ass of the people that created the problems.

And, before you say it Willow, this old millwright is headed for another six figure year, if I don't retire first. So, without a doubt, I work harder than you do for what I get. And probably pay more taxes.

Given the state of the economy, I think that the taxes under Clinton should be re-instated, ASAP. And that would cost me more. But I would rather see that, and a good economy, than what we have today.

got news for you budrow,, when 50% of the people have to pay for the other 50% of the people you are on the brink of disaster. So take half of your six figures and give it away. see how your budget looks then.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The share of Americans below the poverty line in 2004 ($19,307 for a family of four) would have more than doubled, from 13.5 percent to 29 percent. That is, 45 million more Americans would have been poor.

By "Americans" I wonder if illegal immigrants were counted?

I wonder what the poverty line in Mexico was during 2004?

 

[WillowTree]

Public Programs Keep Millions Out of Poverty

I would argue that public programs keep millions in "poverty" as well.

True, Did you see Stossel's latest special? About handouts? American indians who stay on the dole are poverty stricken, American Indians who become evil entrepreuers are RICH.

 

[rdean]

Public Programs Keep Millions Out of Poverty

Like Medicare, SS and investing in American's infrastructure, Republicans call that "wasted money".

 

[bripat9643]

It is sad that so many here that consider themselves 'Christian' would prefer to see their fellow citizens starve than give them the minimal support that it takes to keep many of them above the poverty line. As for the 'get a job' yap-yap, we constantly see pictures of people lined up around the block for a couple of janitorial jobs paying minimum wages.

No one is stopping you from writing them a check. All you libs who are so concerned about poor people never want to give your own money. Making others pay is not charity or "compassion." It's robbery.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The share of Americans below the poverty line in 2004 ($19,307 for a family of four) would have more than doubled, from 13.5 percent to 29 percent. That is, 45 million more Americans would have been poor.

By "Americans" I wonder if illegal immigrants were counted?

I wonder what the poverty line in Mexico was during 2004?

34 pesos?

Funny, these idiots actually think transfer payments keep people out of poverty. They're still in poverty, they're just given enough money to raise them over the threshold. Take that money away, they're right back in the shitter.

It hasn't addressed the problem, only the symptoms.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Public Programs Keep Millions Out of Poverty

Like Medicare, SS and investing in American's infrastructure, Republicans call that "wasted money".

You really are this stupid?

 

[Meister]

It is sad that so many here that consider themselves 'Christian' would prefer to see their fellow citizens starve than give them the minimal support that it takes to keep many of them above the poverty line. As for the 'get a job' yap-yap, we constantly see pictures of people lined up around the block for a couple of janitorial jobs paying minimum wages.

The people that are out of work in this economy did not create the present economic crisis. That was done at the top, by people that are still doing very well, thank you, when they should be doing hard time.

Yet people like Willow want to punish further those that are already hurting from this economy. And kiss the ass of the people that created the problems.

And, before you say it Willow, this old millwright is headed for another six figure year, if I don't retire first. So, without a doubt, I work harder than you do for what I get. And probably pay more taxes.

Given the state of the economy, I think that the taxes under Clinton should be re-instated, ASAP. And that would cost me more. But I would rather see that, and a good economy, than what we have today.

I think this is more in line with what conservative christians would do, roxie:
"Give a Man a Fish, Feed Him For a Day. Teach a Man to Fish, Feed Him For a Lifetime"