Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[MaggieMae]

Welfare is self defeating.

You see your parents get up everyday and go to work. That preps you to get a job later in life.

You see your parents up after you come home from school, sitting around doing nothing. That preps you to do the same.

We have know this for at least 37 of those 47 years. And yet the dems constantly increase spending on something they must know doesn't work. So logically they must be doing it to keep the poor voting for them. And by increasing the debt we devalue the dollar, making more people poor and therefore reliant on the dems.

It's blatant for all that can see.

Oh wow, if we're going to continue with the blame game, I'll add even more of mine then. Check the figures and tell me when welfare outlay began increasing. You can use this same website to go back as far as when these figures began to be recorded.

Government Welfare Chart in United States 1995-2015 - Federal State Local

 

[MaggieMae]

The war on poverty has worked. It has just worked for a demographic that just doesn't count.

100 years ago, most people living in the U.S. were male, under 23 years old, lived in the country and rented their homes. Almost half of all the people in the U.S. lived in households with five or more other people.

Today, most people in the U.S. are female, 35 years old or older and live in metropolitan areas where they own their home. Most people in the U.S. now either live alone or in a households with no more than one or two other people.

It has first and foremost benefited the vilified single parent. I'll grant there will always be completely horrible people on welfare but the percentage is probably equal to the percentage of soldiers that murder. And I don't see anyone advocating we get rid of our military.

Thanks for the statistics. But conservatives will forever maintain that we should all be living exactly the way we were in the 50's, regardless of demographics.

 

[Oddball]

The war on poverty has worked. It has just worked for a demographic that just doesn't count.

Yeah...The bureaucrats.

Wrong again. Single mothers have seen their poverty rate cut in half by these programs. As previously noted, the majority of cash benefit recipients are out in 2-3 yrs, long enough to get an associates and potty train their children so they can be accepted in pre-schools. The generational recipients almost overwhelmingly have disability issues involved.

Uh-huh....Create programs that encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy -and make no mistake about it, the rate of illegitimacy, especially amongst blacks, has skyrocketed since 1965- then claim that your programs help those whom you've encouraged to exhibit the behavior.

Classic socialist do-gooder scam...Break a man's leg, then hand him a crutch and condescendingly preach to him how lucky you he is to have your "help".

In the meantime, the bureaucrats clean up.

 

[rightwinger]

Here's an idea for the poor people. Stop smoking cigarettes, stop buying lottery tickets, stop drinking alcohol, Stop having babies, stop making bad decisions. Maybe after a while you won't be so poor?


]

You forgot..... Stop paying the rent, stop heating your home, stop getting sick, stop dreaming about educating your kids

Sorry Leftwinger - Actions have consequences. If you spend your life smoking cigarettes, getting high, drinking alcohol, and buying lottery tickets - you're life may not be so great. If you can't afford to pay your bills - Move in with family or friends, share expenses with other people that make bad decisions like you, eat less food. The best education you can give your kids is by example. Stop being a loser.

Sorry Zander...but it is the same old blame the victim mentality of the conservative right. "If only they hadn't blown their money...they would be rich like you and I"

I hear the same old stories about how poor people scam the system and drive Escalades while collecting food stamps. The same stories of "I was on line at the grocery store and they were buying Filet Mignon with food stamps"

The poor people I have met in my life worked hard. They drove 15 year old pickup trucks, had hand me down furniture and their kids wore hand me down clothes. If the car broke down and they needed $600 to repair it...they did without. If they had to pay a $1000 doctor bill...they did without. Electricity got cut off and bills did not get paid.

Not everyone in this world gets dealt a fair hand. Some get everything handed to them and some get nothing but scraps.

These people are not the losers that you claim. They work hard and have little to show for it. You can gloat and say they deserve it. But sometimes there is not an open path for success. In every society, some flourish and some suffer. A great society takes care of all its citizens

 

[daveman]

This is a key point that isn't broadly understood. There are many out there who believe the War on Poverty refers to some kind of cash assistance program, which they envision to be some kind of souped-up version of AFDC.

The reality is that it refers to a series of programs aimed at providing or achieving education, job training, and individual empowerment. I suppose it would help if every time one is tempted to use the phrase "War on Poverty" he instead substitutes in some of the actual programs ("Job Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Work-Study Program, Adult Basic Education, Rural Loan Program, Employment and Investment Incentives, Work Experience Program, VISTA, the Community Action Program etc").

And you're right to point out the max feas provision of the Community Action Program. The interpretation of that phrase during the implementation of the War on Poverty is a long and complicated story but it does underscore the point that the importance of individual empowerment (not cash transfers), along with skills acquisition (via educational opportunities and job training/experience ventures) was the bedrock philosophical principle underlying the "war." Exactly the sort of attitude many have taken already in this thread.

Yet, after 50 years and trillions upon trillions of dollars of expropriation and redistribution, you schmucks still mewl that poverty, hunger, homelessness and "income equity" are worse than ever.

Like that's supposed to be evidence of success?

It isn't successful. That's part of the argument. But with all those trillions, what part did private enterprise try to play to reduce the dependence?

They gave jobs to people who had gotten themselves qualified.

 

[rightwinger]

Yet, after 50 years and trillions upon trillions of dollars of expropriation and redistribution, you schmucks still mewl that poverty, hunger, homelessness and "income equity" are worse than ever.

Like that's supposed to be evidence of success?

It isn't successful. That's part of the argument. But with all those trillions, what part did private enterprise try to play to reduce the dependence?

They gave jobs to people who had gotten themselves qualified.

Nobody "gives" anyone a job. They recieve labor in return and recieve more in profit than they pay for that labor. Once they no longer make a profit off that labor...the worker gets fired.

There is a delicate balance in our society over what that profit margin is. It tends to swing back and forth as employers and employees jockey for their rightful share

 

[daveman]

It isn't successful. That's part of the argument. But with all those trillions, what part did private enterprise try to play to reduce the dependence?

They gave jobs to people who had gotten themselves qualified.

Nobody "gives" anyone a job. They recieve labor in return and recieve more in profit than they pay for that labor. Once they no longer make a profit off that labor...the worker gets fired.

There is a delicate balance in our society over what that profit margin is. It tends to swing back and forth as employers and employees jockey for their rightful share

Very well. They hired people who had gotten themselves qualified.

 

[snjmom]

Yeah...The bureaucrats.

Wrong again. Single mothers have seen their poverty rate cut in half by these programs. As previously noted, the majority of cash benefit recipients are out in 2-3 yrs, long enough to get an associates and potty train their children so they can be accepted in pre-schools. The generational recipients almost overwhelmingly have disability issues involved.

Uh-huh....Create programs that encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy -and make no mistake about it, the rate of illegitimacy, especially amongst blacks, has skyrocketed since 1965- then claim that your programs help those whom you've encouraged to exhibit the behavior.

Classic socialist do-gooder scam...Break a man's leg, then hand him a crutch and condescendingly preach to him how lucky you he is to have your "help".

In the meantime, the bureaucrats clean up.

Blacks are still not the biggest recipients of welfare. What aspects of welfare do you think encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy? The "no man" requirement? Where do you think that originated, with liberals or conservatives?

How does that address the differences between short-term and generational welfare useage?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Wrong again. Single mothers have seen their poverty rate cut in half by these programs. As previously noted, the majority of cash benefit recipients are out in 2-3 yrs, long enough to get an associates and potty train their children so they can be accepted in pre-schools. The generational recipients almost overwhelmingly have disability issues involved.

Uh-huh....Create programs that encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy -and make no mistake about it, the rate of illegitimacy, especially amongst blacks, has skyrocketed since 1965- then claim that your programs help those whom you've encouraged to exhibit the behavior.

Classic socialist do-gooder scam...Break a man's leg, then hand him a crutch and condescendingly preach to him how lucky you he is to have your "help".

In the meantime, the bureaucrats clean up.

Blacks are still not the biggest recipients of welfare. What aspects of welfare do you think encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy? The "no man" requirement? Where do you think that originated, with liberals or conservatives?

How does that address the differences between short-term and generational welfare useage?

I should hope that 12% of the population is not the biggest recipients of anything.

 

[Oddball]

Wrong again. Single mothers have seen their poverty rate cut in half by these programs. As previously noted, the majority of cash benefit recipients are out in 2-3 yrs, long enough to get an associates and potty train their children so they can be accepted in pre-schools. The generational recipients almost overwhelmingly have disability issues involved.

Uh-huh....Create programs that encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy -and make no mistake about it, the rate of illegitimacy, especially amongst blacks, has skyrocketed since 1965- then claim that your programs help those whom you've encouraged to exhibit the behavior.

Classic socialist do-gooder scam...Break a man's leg, then hand him a crutch and condescendingly preach to him how lucky you he is to have your "help".

In the meantime, the bureaucrats clean up.

Blacks are still not the biggest recipients of welfare. What aspects of welfare do you think encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy? The "no man" requirement? Where do you think that originated, with liberals or conservatives?

How does that address the differences between short-term and generational welfare useage?

When did I say they were?...Oh, that's right, I didn't.

It's axiomatic that if you subsidize something, you get more of it....Where the foolhardy idea originated is irrelevant to me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, let's try this on a smaller scale.

Let's say we eliminate Medicaid altogether, poof, gone.

How does that help eliminate poverty in America?

 

[Greenbeard]

Let's say we eliminate Medicaid altogether, poof, gone.

How does that help eliminate poverty in America?

You know, over the past several months a handful of (conservative) states have explored that option--ending the state Medicaid program. They've all concluded that this would be a very bad idea.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah...The bureaucrats.

Wrong again. Single mothers have seen their poverty rate cut in half by these programs. As previously noted, the majority of cash benefit recipients are out in 2-3 yrs, long enough to get an associates and potty train their children so they can be accepted in pre-schools. The generational recipients almost overwhelmingly have disability issues involved.

Uh-huh....Create programs that encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy -and make no mistake about it, the rate of illegitimacy, especially amongst blacks, has skyrocketed since 1965- then claim that your programs help those whom you've encourage to exhibit the behavior.

Classic socialist do-gooder scam...Break a man's leg, then hand him a crutch and condescendingly preach to him how lucky you he is to have your "help".

In the meantime, the bureaucrats clean up.

It's bewildering isn't it?

Again referring to the graph in the OP, the poverty rate was plummeting BEFORE the so-called 'War on Poverty' and from that point on has been up and down but fairly level on average after expenditures exceeding $10 trillion on poverty programs since LBJ pushed Congress to allocate $1 billion for his anti-poverty initiative 47 years ago.

Any economist or social analyst worth his salt will tell you that poverty is not addressed adequately by government but rather by economic health in any society. The more free, less encumbered, and more opportunity to be prosperous the people have, the less poverty there will be and the less severe the poverty that exists will be.

So maybe, just maybe government programs are not the answer to poverty in America? Maybe just maybe government regulation and tax structures that best encourage the private sector is the best plan to reduce poverty in America?

I just shake my head when I read some of our members suggesting that if we don't give the poor television sets and Xboxes and other luxuries that we will just encourage them to steal them. That might hold up if our history didn't show that in times of much less less prosperity and much more poverty in the past, there was much less crime. Maybe just maybe the answer is in teaching traditional values of honesty, integrity, basic common decency instead of assuming everybody will be evil if they aren't given what they want?

I just shake my head when I read some of our members suggesting that we hurt the children if we don't support their irresponsible parents. When one in five children lives in poverty and almost ALL of that one in five are children of single parents, maybe just maybe the answer is in promoting marriage, two parent traditional families, and people accepting their responsibilities of supporting and parenting their children if they are going to have children. Maybe just maybe we promote children in poverty by subsidizing irresponsible behavior?

I know some of you sneer at and turn up your nose at conservative values. But if we are serious about addressing the root and effect of poverty on our people, I think you would all do well to take another honest look at that.

 

[snjmom]

Uh-huh....Create programs that encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy -and make no mistake about it, the rate of illegitimacy, especially amongst blacks, has skyrocketed since 1965- then claim that your programs help those whom you've encouraged to exhibit the behavior.

Classic socialist do-gooder scam...Break a man's leg, then hand him a crutch and condescendingly preach to him how lucky you he is to have your "help".

In the meantime, the bureaucrats clean up.

Blacks are still not the biggest recipients of welfare. What aspects of welfare do you think encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy? The "no man" requirement? Where do you think that originated, with liberals or conservatives?

How does that address the differences between short-term and generational welfare useage?

When did I say they were?...Oh, that's right, I didn't.

It's axiomatic that if you subsidize something, you get more of it....Where the foolhardy idea originated is irrelevant to me.

Where did I say you said that? Oh, that's right, I didn't. My concern with the origination of foolhardy ideas is that there are more emanating from the same source. And third time, how do you propose we address the differences between short-term and generation welfare useage?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uh-huh....Create programs that encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy -and make no mistake about it, the rate of illegitimacy, especially amongst blacks, has skyrocketed since 1965- then claim that your programs help those whom you've encouraged to exhibit the behavior.

Classic socialist do-gooder scam...Break a man's leg, then hand him a crutch and condescendingly preach to him how lucky you he is to have your "help".

In the meantime, the bureaucrats clean up.

Blacks are still not the biggest recipients of welfare. What aspects of welfare do you think encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy? The "no man" requirement? Where do you think that originated, with liberals or conservatives?

How does that address the differences between short-term and generational welfare useage?

I should hope that 12% of the population is not the biggest recipients of anything.

I agree with you, and I doubt that the group is not.

 

[Greenbeard]

Again referring to the graph in the OP, the poverty rate was plummeting BEFORE the so-called 'War on Poverty' and from that point on has been up and down but fairly level on average after expenditures exceeding $10 trillion on poverty programs since LBJ pushed Congress to allocate $1 billion for his anti-poverty initiative 47 years ago.

Why are you assuming that a major push toward a federal anti-poverty policy began in 1964 with the War on Poverty? Your graph shows the decline beginning in or after 1961. Coincidentally, perhaps, that's the year a series of significant anti-poverty measures (though not billed as such, politically) began under the New Frontier. Some examples:

• The Kennedy Administration pushed an economic stimulus program through congress in an effort to kick-start the American economy following an economic downturn. On February 2, 1961, Kennedy sent a comprehensive Economic Message to Congress which had been in preparation for several weeks. The legislative proposals put forward in this message included[9]:
  
  (1.) The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,
  
  (2.) The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,
  
  (3.) The redevelopment of distressed areas,
  
  (4.) An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,
  
  (5.) An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,
  
  (6.) The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and
  
  (7.) The financing of a comprehensive home-building and slum clearance program[10].
  
  The following month, the first of these seven measures became law, and the remaining six measures had been signed by the end of June. Altogether, the economic stimulus program provided an estimated 420,000 construction jobs under a new Housing Act, $175 million in higher wages for those below the new minimum, over $400 million in aid to over 1,000 distressed counties, over $200 million in extra welfare payments to 750,000 children and their parents, and nearly $800 million in extended unemployment benefits for nearly three million unemployed Americans
• Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1961 greatly expanded the FLSA's scope in the retail trade sector and increased the minimum wage for previously covered workers to $1.15 an hour effective September 1961 and to $1.25 an hour in September 1963. The minimum for workers newly subject to the Act was set at $1.00 an hour effective September 1961, $1.15 an hour in September 1964, and $1.25 an hour in September 1965. Retail and service establishments were allowed to employ full-time students at wages of no more than 15 percent below the minimum with proper certification from the Department of Labor. The amendments extended coverage to employees of retail trade enterprises with sales exceeding $1 million annually, although individual establishments within those covered enterprises were exempt if their annual sales fell below $250,000. The concept of enterprise coverage was introduced by the 1961 amendments. Those amendments extended coverage in the retail trade industry from an established 250,000 workers to 2.2 million. [...]
• An Executive Order was issued (1962) which provided federal employees with collective bargaining rights[19].
• The Federal Salary Reform Act (1962) established the principle of “maintaining federal white-collar wages at a level with those paid to employees performing similar jobs in private enterprise [...]
• Unemployment and welfare benefits were expanded[28].
• In 1961, Social Security benefits were increased by 20% and provision for early retirement was introduced, enabling workers to retire at the age of sixty-two while receiving partial benefits[29].
• The Social Security Amendments of 1961 permitted male workers to elect early retirement age 62, increased minimum benefits, liberalized the benefit payments to aged widow, widower, or surviving dependent parent, and also liberalized eligibility requirements and the retirement test[30].
• The 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act authorized the federal government to reimburse states for the provision of social services[31].
• The School Lunch Act was amended for authority to begin providing free meals in poverty-stricken areas[32].
• A pilot food stamp program was launched (1961), covering six areas in the United States. In 1962, the program was extended to eighteen areas, feeding 240,000 people[33].
• Various school lunch and school milk programs were extended, “enabling 700,000 more children to enjoy a hot school lunch and eighty-five thousand more schools, child care centers, and camps to receive fresh milk”[34].
• ADC was extended to whole families (1961)[35].
• Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, as coverage was extended to adults caring for dependent children[36].
• A major revision of the public welfare laws was carried out, with a $300 million modernisation which emphasised rehabilitation instead of relief”[37].
• A temporary antirecession supplement to unemployment compensation was introduced[38].
• Food distribution to needy Americans was increased[39]. In January 1961, the first executive order issued by Kennedy mandated that the Department of Agriculture increase the quantity and variety of foods donated for needy households. This executive order represented a shift in the Commodity Distribution Programs’ primary purpose, from surplus disposal to that of providing nutritious foods to low-income households[40].
• Social Security benefits were extended to an additional five million Americans[41].
• The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act (1962) provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans[42].
• The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 provided for greater Federal sharing in the cost of rehabilitative services to applicants, recipients, and persons likely to become applicants for public assistance. It increased the Federal share in the cost of public assistance payments, and permitted the States to combine the various categories into one category. The amendments also made permanent the 1961 amendment which extended aid to dependent children to cover children removed from unsuitable homes[43].
• Federal funds were made available for the payment of foster care costs for AFDC-eligible children who had come into state custody[44].
• An act was approved (1963) which extended for one year the period during which responsibility for the placement and foster care of dependent children, under the program of aid to families with dependent children under Title IV of the Social Security Act[...]
• The most comprehensive housing and urban renewal program in American history up until that point was carried out, including the first major provisions for middle-income housing, protection of urban open spaces, public mass transit, and private low-income housing[46].
• Omnibus Housing Bill 1961. In March 1961 Kennedy sent Congress a special message, proposing an ambitious and complex housing program to spur the economy, revitalize cities, and provide affordable housing for middle- and low-income families. The bill proposed spending $3.19 billion and placed major emphasis on improving the existing housing supply, instead of on new housing starts, and creating a cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Affairs to oversee the programs. [...]
• Urban renewal grants were increased from $2 to $4 million, while an additional 100,000 units of public housing were constructed.
• Opportunities were provided for coordinated planning of community development: technical assistance to state and local governments.
• Under the Kennedy Administration, there was a change of focus from a wrecker ball approach to small rehabilitation projects in order to preserve existing ‘urban textures’.
• Funds for housing for the elderly were increased[47].
• Title V of the Housing Act was amended (1961) to make nonfarm rural residents eligible for direct housing loans from the Farmers Home Administration. These changes extended the housing program to towns with a population of up to 2,500[48].
• The Senior Citizens Housing Act (1962) established loans for low-rent apartment projects which were “designed to meet the needs of people age 62 and over”

And so on. If our standard here is "when things happened on the graph" it sounds like this agenda was a resounding (astonishing, actually) success in combating poverty.

 

[boedicca]

Only if one defines Resounding Success as getting the government to mug hardworking people on one's behalf.

 

[Greenbeard]

Only if one defines Resounding Success as getting the government to mug hardworking people on one's behalf.

I was thinking more along the lines of a 10 percentage point drop in the poverty rate in the space of a single decade (i.e. virtually cutting it in half).

 

[boedicca]

And a decline in the ratio of people in the workforce.

Our economy is grinding down towards a Eurostyle low growth / permanent structurally high unemployment rate for a reason, bub.

 

[rightwinger]

Only if one defines Resounding Success as getting the government to mug hardworking people on one's behalf.

You may look at it as a mugging..

But you also may ask what happens if I get sick or injured? What will happen to you if you are no longer able to work? What will happen if your child or loved one gets sick?

Great societies provide a safety net to protect those who can no longer compete