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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would submit that for the plight of those on poverty as compared to other countries, the poor in the US are much better off. Are they $50 trillion better off? Probably not, but you cannot compare how people were living in poverty in the 1930's as opposed to today.

Yes, the poor in America are wearing brand name clothes, have their manicure professionally done, carry designer's bags and Iphones, sell the drugs and definitely not starving (more likely heavily overweight).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would submit that for the plight of those on poverty as compared to other countries, the poor in the US are much better off. Are they $50 trillion better off? Probably not, but you cannot compare how people were living in poverty in the 1930's as opposed to today.

50 years ago is 1967 but if you want to talk about poverty in the 1930s after the Great Depression, there was a higher rate of children living in married households.

The Great Society programs contributed to the decline of marriage so that a large number of poor children now live in single parent or grandparent households It is one of the worst effects of the Great Society

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would submit that for the plight of those on poverty as compared to other countries, the poor in the US are much better off. Are they $50 trillion better off? Probably not, but you cannot compare how people were living in poverty in the 1930's as opposed to today.

50 years ago is 1967 but if you want to talk about poverty in the 1930s after the Great Depression, there was a higher rate of children living in married households.

The Great Society programs contributed to the decline of marriage so that a large number of poor children now live in single parent or grandparent households It is one of the worst effects of the Great Society

Yes, let's blame it on the liberal agenda.

[Anonymous]

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.

I don't think so. We became sloppy with handouts and just started throwing money everywhere because money can fix everything. Well, that's just not the case.
It had a lot of negative consequences rather than really thinking out the distribution, metrics and effects properly. Human nature is a bitch.

Don't get me wrong. Welfare is needed, but not how it was instituted under the "New Deal", the "Square Deal", the "Fair Deal" and the "War on Poverty". Those have damaged us for many decades.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would submit that for the plight of those on poverty as compared to other countries, the poor in the US are much better off. Are they $50 trillion better off? Probably not, but you cannot compare how people were living in poverty in the 1930's as opposed to today.

50 years ago is 1967 but if you want to talk about poverty in the 1930s after the Great Depression, there was a higher rate of children living in married households.

The Great Society programs contributed to the decline of marriage so that a large number of poor children now live in single parent or grandparent households It is one of the worst effects of the Great Society

Yes, let's blame it on the liberal agenda.

DP, but it's true. Welfare has disincentivized marriage among the poor. Why not say that welfare continues if the poor mother marries the poor father? Then you'd have one stay-at-home parent and one who could get a job. (Not much, probably, but something.) For every dollar Papa earns, welfare drops by 50 cents. It's a way to gradually move people off welfare, and to encourage people with children to get married.

[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.

NP. Fascinating read. I think Sowell is spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think so. We became sloppy with handouts and just started throwing money everywhere because money can fix everything. Well, that's just not the case.
It had a lot of negative consequences rather than really thinking out the distribution, metrics and effects properly. Human nature is a bitch.

Don't get me wrong. Welfare is needed, but not how it was instituted under the "New Deal", the "Square Deal", the "Fair Deal" and the "War on Poverty". Those have damaged us for many decades.

On which programs, specifically, are we "just throwing money everywhere"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, I fixed that for you. You're welcome.

BTW, "general Welfare" is not what you think it means. See: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

from James Madison, the main author of the U.S. Constitution. He tells you exactly what it meant in writing the "general Welfare" into the Constitution.

Actually it doesn't. Lays the framework for common defense but not general welfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would submit that for the plight of those on poverty as compared to other countries, the poor in the US are much better off. Are they $50 trillion better off? Probably not, but you cannot compare how people were living in poverty in the 1930's as opposed to today.

50 years ago is 1967 but if you want to talk about poverty in the 1930s after the Great Depression, there was a higher rate of children living in married households.

The Great Society programs contributed to the decline of marriage so that a large number of poor children now live in single parent or grandparent households It is one of the worst effects of the Great Society

Yes, let's blame it on the liberal agenda.

That liberal bastion, the Brookings Institution, blamed the decline of marriage on the Great Society programs

To what do you attribute the decline in marriage, PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would submit that for the plight of those on poverty as compared to other countries, the poor in the US are much better off. Are they $50 trillion better off? Probably not, but you cannot compare how people were living in poverty in the 1930's as opposed to today.

Yes, the poor in America are wearing brand name clothes, have their manicure professionally done, carry designer's bags and Iphones, sell the drugs and definitely not starving (more likely heavily overweight).

If you think the poor are living in such opulence and luxury, why don't you try it for a couple of months and then get back to us with your findings.

I think your tune will change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would submit that for the plight of those on poverty as compared to other countries, the poor in the US are much better off. Are they $50 trillion better off? Probably not, but you cannot compare how people were living in poverty in the 1930's as opposed to today.

50 years ago is 1967 but if you want to talk about poverty in the 1930s after the Great Depression, there was a higher rate of children living in married households.

The Great Society programs contributed to the decline of marriage so that a large number of poor children now live in single parent or grandparent households It is one of the worst effects of the Great Society

Yes, let's blame it on the liberal agenda.

That liberal bastion, the Brookings Institution, blamed the decline of marriage on the Great Society programs

To what do you attribute the decline in marriage, PP?

Marriage is declining among non-poor people as well. To what do you attribute that decline?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The War on Poverty: 50 years of failure

"This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's launch of the War on Poverty. In January 1964, Johnson declared "unconditional war on poverty in America." Since then, the taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson's war. Adjusted for inflation, that's three times the cost of all military wars since the American Revolution. Last year, government spent $943 billion dollars providing cash, food, housing and medical care to poor and low-income Americans. (That figure doesn't include Social Security or Medicare.) More than 100 million people, or one-third of Americans, received some type of welfare aid, at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. If converted into cash, this spending was five times what was needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

The U.S. Census Bureau has just released its annual poverty report. The report claims that in 2013, 14.5 percent of Americans were poor. Remarkably, that's almost the same poverty rate as in 1967, three years after the War on Poverty started. How can that be? How can government spend $9,000 per recipient and have no effect on poverty? The answer is - it can't. Census counts a family as poor if its "income" falls below certain thresholds. But in counting "income," Census ignores almost all of the $943 billion in annual welfare spending. This, of course, makes the Census poverty figures very misleading. The actual living conditions of households labeled as poor by Census are surprising to most people. According to the government's own surveys, 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning; nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television; half have a personal computer; 40 percent have a wide-screen HDTV. Three-quarters own a car or truck; nearly a third has two or more vehicles."

More:

http://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/the-war-poverty-50-years-failure


50 Trillion? How much is that per person (using today's population numbers)?

50 Trillion / 320,000,000 is $156,250 per person spent on eliminating poverty in the last 50 years. What could you do with $156K ?

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.

[Anonymous]

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!

[Anonymous]

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.

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

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 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.

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.