The war on poverty:

[longknife]

$21 Trillion Later, Government Has Only Made Things Worse

Guest post by Matthew Vadum at Doug Ross @ Journal blog

The War on Poverty has barely made a dent in actual poverty, states the 205-page report unveiled last month by the House Budget Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.).

All we've gotten from waging this war is a larger portion of the American population dependent on government handouts – in the form of “entitlements”! What a ridiculous word.

Read the piece @ Doug Ross @ Journal: THE WAR ON POVERTY: $21 Trillion Later, Government Has Only Made Things Worse

 

[Sallow]

Except it hasn't made things worse.

While we still have poverty, we also have social mobility, people living longer and happier lives.

There is still much to be done..but saying it's made things worse is patently not true.

 

[DiamondDave]

People are not living stronger and happier lives because of the entitlements

With the ever increasing spending on such handouts we have seen more go on handouts and no decrease in what the handouts were supposed to help

Entitlements are a governmental failure and should be eliminated from government... they were never intended to be part of the federal government anyway...

 

[darroll]

The war on poverty keeps growing, growing, growing. People like free things.

 

[Ava]

The answer to poverty in America does not involve more money. That results in dependency and slavery of another sort.

-------------------


Today, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty. Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.


Since its beginning, U.S. taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.

September 16, 2014

Commentary By

Robert Rector

Robert Rector is a leading national authority on poverty, the U.S.welfare system and immigration and is a Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow.



more: The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop

 

[NYcarbineer]

The government hasn't made poverty worse. The government has kept poverty from being even worse than it would be had there been no government help for the poor.

One need only look around the world at the places where the poor get little or no help from the government to prove that.

 

[OKTexas]

I've always said there are two wars the US would never win, poverty and drugs, because the government insures new supplies are imported daily. There's way too much money and power available in fighting the wars, not in winning them.

 

[BluesLegend]

I predict libs will counter that we have not spent enough, we need to raise taxes on the rich, redistribute wealth, socialize industries, etc. their normal socialist crap.

 

[Ava]

I've always said there are two wars the US would never win, poverty and drugs, because the government insures new supplies are imported daily. There's way too much money and power available in fighting the wars, not in winning them.

Nor the war on smoking. ( cigarettes anyway )

Smoking rates on the rise in New York City - New York News

 

[Freemason9]

I predict libs will counter that we have not spent enough, we need to raise taxes on the rich, redistribute wealth, socialize industries, etc. their normal socialist crap.

What is the right wing solution to poverty--other than concentration camps, I mean?

 

[Claudette]

How bout letting people take care of themselves?

If there is no handout by we the taxpayer then folks will think twice before having that second, third or fourth kid. If they have consequenses to their actions and no free money to support those actions then they will smarten up.

If not. Hope they like looking for a job to take care of all those consequences they are bringing into the world.

 

[Erand7899]

The government hasn't made poverty worse. The government has kept poverty from being even worse than it would be had there been no government help for the poor.

One need only look around the world at the places where the poor get little or no help from the government to prove that.

"All around the world" is not the United States of America. We had poverty in this country before the war on poverty, and we have poverty in this country today. The $22 trillion spent has had little impact on the number of people in poverty, but it has been very successful in drawing a large sector of the American people into government dependency, and that was the purpose of the war on poverty from the outset.

People dependent upon government will vote for the party that offers them more from government. Who would have thunk it?

 

[BluesLegend]

I predict libs will counter that we have not spent enough, we need to raise taxes on the rich, redistribute wealth, socialize industries, etc. their normal socialist crap.

What is the right wing solution to poverty--other than concentration camps, I mean?

If only I could come up with a reply that was as stupid as your question, libs help me out here you are good at stupid.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

anyone noticed that every time the federal government declares war on something and dumps tons of money towards fighting it that thing gets worse?

I see a funny thing on FaceBook the other day, a guy said why not declare war on jobs, see what happens.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The government hasn't made poverty worse. The government has kept poverty from being even worse than it would be had there been no government help for the poor.

One need only look around the world at the places where the poor get little or no help from the government to prove that.

"All around the world" is not the United States of America. We had poverty in this country before the war on poverty, and we have poverty in this country today. The $22 trillion spent has had little impact on the number of people in poverty, but it has been very successful in drawing a large sector of the American people into government dependency, and that was the purpose of the war on poverty from the outset.

People dependent upon government will vote for the party that offers them more from government. Who would have thunk it?

Why would there be fewer poor people if Medicaid had never happened? What would have made all the poor people who have benefited from Medicaid better off if they had never had that benefit?

How would they be richer today?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How bout letting people take care of themselves?

If there is no handout by we the taxpayer then folks will think twice before having that second, third or fourth kid. If they have consequenses to their actions and no free money to support those actions then they will smarten up.

If not. Hope they like looking for a job to take care of all those consequences they are bringing into the world.

We have a thousand people stand in line for 100 jobs at a Walmart, and you think people don't want to take care of themselves?

We have a thousand people stand in line for 100 jobs at a Walmart, and you think the opportunities for good paying jobs now are no different now than they were in the 1960's?

 

[koshergrl]

"
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop"

"The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 a few years after the War on Poverty started. Census data actually shows that poverty has gotten worse over the last 40 years.
"How is this possible? How can the taxpayers spend $22 trillion on welfare while poverty gets worse?

"The typical family that Census identifies as poor has air conditioning, cable or satellite TV, and a computer in its home.

"The answer is it isn’t possible. Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state.

"For most Americans, the word “poverty” means significant material deprivation, an inability to provide a family with adequate nutritious food, reasonable shelter and clothing. But only a small portion of the more than 40 million people labelled as poor by Census fit that description.

"The media frequently associate the idea of poverty with being homeless. But less than two percent of the poor are homeless. Only one in ten live in mobile homes. The typical house or apartment of the poor is in good repair and uncrowded; it is actually larger than the average dwelling of non-poor French, Germans or English.

"According to government surveys, the typical family that Census identifies as poor has air conditioning, cable or satellite TV, and a computer in his home. Forty percent have a wide screen HDTV and another 40 percent have internet access. Three quarters of the poor own a car and roughly a third have two or more cars. (These numbers are not the result of the current bad economy pushing middle class families into poverty; instead, they reflect a steady improvement in living conditions among the poor for many decades.)"

The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop

 

[Ibentoken]

In the Black community 72% of children born into single parent homes. Fail.

 

[Claudette]

How bout letting people take care of themselves?

If there is no handout by we the taxpayer then folks will think twice before having that second, third or fourth kid. If they have consequenses to their actions and no free money to support those actions then they will smarten up.

If not. Hope they like looking for a job to take care of all those consequences they are bringing into the world.

We have a thousand people stand in line for 100 jobs at a Walmart, and you think people don't want to take care of themselves?

We have a thousand people stand in line for 100 jobs at a Walmart, and you think the opportunities for good paying jobs now are no different now than they were in the 1960's?

LMAO We also have loads of freeloaders who love that EBT card filled with someone elses money. They love having free stuff provided by someone elses hard work.

I have no sympathy for any of them and I certainly don't want to bankroll their lives for em.

If you do then whip out YOUR wallet YOUR checkbook and YOUR DEBIT card. Believe me, they will take every dime you want to give them.

LBJ's war on poverty was and still is an abject failure.

Kicke em all to the curb and let them provide for themselves for a change.

 

[Freemason9]

How bout letting people take care of themselves?

If there is no handout by we the taxpayer then folks will think twice before having that second, third or fourth kid. If they have consequenses to their actions and no free money to support those actions then they will smarten up.

If not. Hope they like looking for a job to take care of all those consequences they are bringing into the world.

We have a thousand people stand in line for 100 jobs at a Walmart, and you think people don't want to take care of themselves?

We have a thousand people stand in line for 100 jobs at a Walmart, and you think the opportunities for good paying jobs now are no different now than they were in the 1960's?

LMAO We also have loads of freeloaders who love that EBT card filled with someone elses money. They love having free stuff provided by someone elses hard work.

I have no sympathy for any of them and I certainly don't want to bankroll their lives for em.

If you do then whip out YOUR wallet YOUR checkbook and YOUR DEBIT card. Believe me, they will take every dime you want to give them.

LBJ's war on poverty was and still is an abject failure.

Kicke em all to the curb and let them provide for themselves for a change.

This isn't 1919 anymore, though. As economies modernize and industries become more reliant upon technology (which displaces human labor), the old "wage slave" paradigm evaporates. You believe that the well-being of others is not your concern, but it IS. Revolutions can be nasty things, and it is politically essential that economies be properly managed for the maximum benefit.

Also, communications trends will ultimately result in stronger democratization movements here and worldwide, so the lucky/rich/greedy/pampered/antisocial minority will have much less power in the future.