$22 Trillion spent on the war on poverty in the last 50 years...

[Anonymous]

We now have the "working poor" - two parent households both working full time for minimum wage at Walmart - who don't have enough to cover food and rent.

You people are so quick to blame the programs to help the poor but not the society that continues to create the poor (not enough housing and high rents, low minimum wage, lack of public transportation, etc).

I am happy to pay for any program that feeds, gives medical attention, education and housing for any American child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You forgot to divide that by 50,the number of years of the total expenditure. That would be a little more than $3,000 per person/year. So would I donate $3000 a year to help my fellow citizens living in poverty, I would.

Yes, but the goal is to get people out\of poverty, not have intergenerational poverty where the same percentage remains for fifty years!

To get people out of multigenerational poverty you need to change the culture. Many kids in areas with multigenerational poverty live with a lot of household dysfunction and don't know what "normal" is. We take normal, functional settings for granted. Normal to them is dysfunction. You actually have to break the cycle. Teach them what normal is. Teach them life skills. Teach them focus and self-discipline. And, give them hope for the future - which we also take for granted. We are used to stable homes, friends and family going off to college and getting good jobs and having good lives. They are used to friends and family going off to prison, getting shot, getting mixed up with bad crowds, becoming drunks or drug abusers, having parents disappear, never having a stable home situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A better start would be to end corporate welfare in which companies get away with paying such low wages that a person working a full time job or two part time jobs ends up at the poverty line and thus subsidized by the taxpayer.

By all means. Let's cut off the food stamps. Safeway, Kroger, Wegmans, Albertsons and all those other large corporations do not need corporate welfare.

They should pay a living wage. And, they can afford to do so.

They do. If they didn't, their workers would be dying and no one would be working.

How about we deal with the out-of-control housing market, in which rent consumes an inordinate amount of many peoples' income, and home ownership is out of reach?

How about moving out of the cities. You want NYC, you are going to pay NYC prices. It's really up to you where you live.

How about we deal with wealth inequality, for example there being no legitimate reason why a corporate CEO today should be making tens of millions of dollars a year when his predecessor a few decades ago wasn't even making 1 million a year. That CEO today isn't actually any more effective, special or worth the extra money than his predecessor was.

The more YOU do, the more wealth inequality there is. Stop doing. We've experienced your agenda in full force. YOU are the problem. You've been dealing with wealth inequality for 50 years. Newsflash: it ain't working!

How about we actually reward the producers and those who create jobs, like small business, and disincentivize and much more aggressively tax people who just suck money out of the economy, house flippers and middlemen and hedge fund traders and arbitrageurs who make their money through manipulating real estate, commodities, stocks, currency et cetera and who don't actually produce anything or contribute in any meaningful way to society. And even more so with predatory businesses.

My god, the victimhood is strong here. Meaningful? That's a definition in your head. House flippers? Should we all sit around and watch soap operas all day and expect money from heaven to pour down on us? How about some individual incentive to better yourself?

[Anonymous]

Appalachian Regional Commission was helping with poverty by retraining out-of-work coal miners and getting them great-paying work as web developers and in other demand fields.

Trump stupidly shut that down.

Must-see video, by the way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=aw6RsUhw1Q8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

To get people out of multigenerational poverty you need to change the culture. Many kids in areas with multigenerational poverty live with a lot of household dysfunction and don't know what "normal" is. We take normal, functional settings for granted. Normal to them is dysfunction. You actually have to break the cycle. Teach them what normal is. Teach them life skills. Teach them focus and self-discipline. And, give them hope for the future - which we also take for granted. We are used to stable homes, friends and family going off to college and getting good jobs and having good lives. They are used to friends and family going off to prison, getting shot, getting mixed up with bad crowds, becoming drunks or drug abusers, having parents disappear, never having a stable home situation.

I agree. How do we do that?

[Anonymous]

You know good and got damn well the majority of that 22 trillion is going towards programs run by agencies which have high-priced executives that don't do shit and thousands employees that get paid big bucks for little results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better start would be to end corporate welfare in which companies get away with paying such low wages that a person working a full time job or two part time jobs ends up at the poverty line and thus subsidized by the taxpayer.

By all means. Let's cut off the food stamps. Safeway, Kroger, Wegmans, Albertsons and all those other large corporations do not need corporate welfare.

They should pay a living wage. And, they can afford to do so.

They do. If they didn't, their workers would be dying and no one would be working.

No they don't. If that were true we wouldn't need food stamps! A huge percentage of people collecting food stamps and other government benefits are in fact working full time.

How about we deal with the out-of-control housing market, in which rent consumes an inordinate amount of many peoples' income, and home ownership is out of reach?

How about moving out of the cities. You want NYC, you are going to pay NYC prices. It's really up to you where you live.

Fine, then move those jobs out of NYC. Companies need to embrace telework and other kinds of better models.

How about we deal with wealth inequality, for example there being no legitimate reason why a corporate CEO today should be making tens of millions of dollars a year when his predecessor a few decades ago wasn't even making 1 million a year. That CEO today isn't actually any more effective, special or worth the extra money than his predecessor was.

The more YOU do, the more wealth inequality there is. Stop doing. We've experienced your agenda in full force. YOU are the problem. You've been dealing with wealth inequality for 50 years. Newsflash: it ain't working!

No. For the last several decades it's been YOUR agenda: Trickle-down, corporatist oligarchy. THAT ain't working.

How about we actually reward the producers and those who create jobs, like small business, and disincentivize and much more aggressively tax people who just suck money out of the economy, house flippers and middlemen and hedge fund traders and arbitrageurs who make their money through manipulating real estate, commodities, stocks, currency et cetera and who don't actually produce anything or contribute in any meaningful way to society. And even more so with predatory businesses.

My god, the victimhood is strong here. Meaningful? That's a definition in your head. House flippers? Should we all sit around and watch soap operas all day and expect money from heaven to pour down on us? How about some individual incentive to better yourself?

Again, we SHOULD NOT incentivize people who don't produce or create anything, or those who harm the economy by impoverishing others. Has nothing to do with "victimhood", has everything to do with creating a more stable and robust economy. The more that money circulates, the more powerful and robust an economy becomes. That means, people with disposable income. Consumerism drives demand and demand drives supply. Can't get any more capitalist than that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poverty rate was 22% in 1960, and it was much worse for black people. Most black people were poor before 1960. Now most black people are middle class. Social Security keeps up to half of all seniors out of poverty.

The initiatives will never be 100% successful because we have a democracy, where politicians battle about these types of policies. Historically, conservatives have fought anti-poverty programs tooth and nail. That, by definition, will cut effectiveness. And that's evident in the South, where poverty rates are by far the highest. The Bible Belt.

What would poverty look like without governmental redistribution of wealth? More like it does in developing countries.

You need to read A Clash of Police Policies, By Dr. Thomas Sowell

The statistics he cites are eye opening.


https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/08/16/a-clash-of-police-policies


Yes, he's black if that helps you.

Lol, he needs to stick to economics and not police work. He obviously knows nothing about it.

[Anonymous]

How about metrics from the outset when the welfare payments start and tracking the results and putting incentives and dis-incentives in place to meet goals, not send a check through the mail for XX years unaudited?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better start would be to end corporate welfare in which companies get away with paying such low wages that a person working a full time job or two part time jobs ends up at the poverty line and thus subsidized by the taxpayer.

By all means. Let's cut off the food stamps. Safeway, Kroger, Wegmans, Albertsons and all those other large corporations do not need corporate welfare.

They should pay a living wage. And, they can afford to do so.

They do. If they didn't, their workers would be dying and no one would be working.

No they don't. If that were true we wouldn't need food stamps! A huge percentage of people collecting food stamps and other government benefits are in fact working full time.

----> Then how about they stop working there? When enough people stop working there, the store gets the message and has to raise wages.

How about we deal with the out-of-control housing market, in which rent consumes an inordinate amount of many peoples' income, and home ownership is out of reach?

How about moving out of the cities. You want NYC, you are going to pay NYC prices. It's really up to you where you live.

Fine, then move those jobs out of NYC. Companies need to embrace telework and other kinds of better models.

----> I agree.

How about we deal with wealth inequality, for example there being no legitimate reason why a corporate CEO today should be making tens of millions of dollars a year when his predecessor a few decades ago wasn't even making 1 million a year. That CEO today isn't actually any more effective, special or worth the extra money than his predecessor was.

The more YOU do, the more wealth inequality there is. Stop doing. We've experienced your agenda in full force. YOU are the problem. You've been dealing with wealth inequality for 50 years. Newsflash: it ain't working!

No. For the last several decades it's been YOUR agenda: Trickle-down, corporatist oligarchy. THAT ain't working.

----> No, you have been in power and have set the welfare programs in motion. They don't go away when you leave. Hullo?

How about we actually reward the producers and those who create jobs, like small business, and disincentivize and much more aggressively tax people who just suck money out of the economy, house flippers and middlemen and hedge fund traders and arbitrageurs who make their money through manipulating real estate, commodities, stocks, currency et cetera and who don't actually produce anything or contribute in any meaningful way to society. And even more so with predatory businesses.

My god, the victimhood is strong here. Meaningful? That's a definition in your head. House flippers? Should we all sit around and watch soap operas all day and expect money from heaven to pour down on us? How about some individual incentive to better yourself?

Again, we SHOULD NOT incentivize people who don't produce or create anything, or those who harm the economy by impoverishing others. Has nothing to do with "victimhood", has everything to do with creating a more stable and robust economy. The more that money circulates, the more powerful and robust an economy becomes. That means, people with disposable income. Consumerism drives demand and demand drives supply. Can't get any more capitalist than that!

----> However, we are incentivizing people who don't produce or create anything. Look at the welfare rolls?!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about metrics from the outset when the welfare payments start and tracking the results and putting incentives and dis-incentives in place to meet goals, not send a check through the mail for XX years unaudited?

How about incentive welfare, much like "lazy" trusts, where the beneficiary gets a certain distribution based on his earnings?

Keep welfare at a base minimum. For every dollar you earn, you will get a 25% "bonus" welfare. That way, a mother who earns, say, $200 a week ($10/hr x 20 hours) would increase her disposable income by $800 + 25% = $1,000 every month. That's quite a chunk of change for a poor person (and added to welfare makes things much more comfortable). But I agree, simply handing out welfare checks willy-nilly disincentivizes work.

[Anonymous]

Chapter Jackson EBT.

YOUTUBE it. Warning, it's explicit.

[Anonymous]

Interesting responses. I would like to hear the issue of self responsibility. If you cannot take care of yourself I agree you should not starve, be homeless, or suffer health wise. But if someone else is going to pay for that then you should have to concede some of your freedoms such as how you spend financial support, have to live a reasonably healthy lifestyle, not have children while you cannot afford to take care of yourself. In the case you do not say " thank you" for the help and keep living a destructive lifestyle, then I believe it is you who forfeits the safety net. At that point if a charity wishes to help wonderful but government has to draw lines at no wins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You forgot to divide that by 50,the number of years of the total expenditure. That would be a little more than $3,000 per person/year. So would I donate $3000 a year to help my fellow citizens living in poverty, I would.

Yes, but the goal is to get people out\of poverty, not have intergenerational poverty where the same percentage remains for fifty years!

This is not liberal's goal, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We now have the "working poor" - two parent households both working full time for minimum wage at Walmart - who don't have enough to cover food and rent.

You people are so quick to blame the programs to help the poor but not the society that continues to create the poor (not enough housing and high rents, low minimum wage, lack of public transportation, etc).

I am happy to pay for any program that feeds, gives medical attention, education and housing for any American child.

This is important. We have less rent control and affordable housing than ever before. People cannot move out of the expensive cities because there is no public transportation in a lot of suburban and rural areas. We have major companies that pay only minimum wage despite earning billions.