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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LBJ created generational poverty.

The best welfare that can be given to the poor are jobs. And President Trump's going to give the poor jobs. He's in process of reindustrializing America. I know that fixing the intentional disasters of Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama will be a task for a true leader. Thank God that we now have a man's man running our operation.

-


Exactly how is this happening?

I ask because he and Ivanka make their crap abroad. And please don't cite Ford, Carrier or Boeing because those were photo ops that have since been backtracked, bigly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Slavery.

Wow. I agree with the first PP.

So you're saying that if we set up some parameters for people receiving taxpayer money, we are enslaving them? So if we were to say that people on welfare cannot spend money on, oh....I don't know....fancy hats, that's akin to slavery (especially when these same people are saying the welfare they get isn't sufficient)? We, as people giving money to poor people, have every right to block poor expenditures of that money. If the poor people getting the fruits of our labor don't like it, they don't have to take our money.

You can't ban people from having children. You cannot enslave their reproductive rights because they get welfare.

We give money to poor people because that's the right, ethical, and productive thing to do. We don't give them money to control their behavior.

It's not right or ethical if people are going to have kids to increase their welfare payments.... and don't tell me that doesn't happen, because it sure as hell does. Gaming that welfare system happens all the time.

People enroll in to food stamp programs also and then set up a store front and sell the food they receive for profit. That's all documented. It's not policed nearly enough.

Please provide a link for this assertion.

[Anonymous]

Most states have a family cap policy, which makes it so that benefits don't increase for additional children for families already on welfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LBJ created generational poverty.

The best welfare that can be given to the poor are jobs. And President Trump's going to give the poor jobs. He's in process of re-industrializing America. I know that fixing the intentional disasters of Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama will be a task for a true leader. Thank God that we now have a man's man running our operation.

Yes, and he's also in the process of standing on the beach and forbidding the tide from coming in.

The manufacturing sector is doing fine in the US. It's just hiring far fewer people than it used to. Trump can't change that without banning automation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LBJ created generational poverty.

The best welfare that can be given to the poor are jobs. And President Trump's going to give the poor jobs. He's in process of re-industrializing America. I know that fixing the intentional disasters of Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama will be a task for a true leader. Thank God that we now have a man's man running our operation.

Yes, and he's also in the process of standing on the beach and forbidding the tide from coming in.

The manufacturing sector is doing fine in the US. It's just hiring far fewer people than it used to. Trump can't change that without banning automation.

And the people who are getting hired in the manufacturing sector are increasingly people with highly technical skills. You need a decent education and serious technical training for many of these jobs. We need leadership to ensure young people get these. I don't really see any meaningful plan in place to make this happen. "Making deals" with one company at a time to temporarily retain or add jobs is not the appropriate skill set to make these types of big changes in our educational system occur.

[Anonymous]

The Heritage Foundation's report is overly simplistic.
Look at these two articles for a more nuanced view:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/how-the-war-on-poverty-succeeded-in-four-charts
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/13/whos-poor-in-america-50-years-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Slavery.

Wow. I agree with the first PP.

So you're saying that if we set up some parameters for people receiving taxpayer money, we are enslaving them? So if we were to say that people on welfare cannot spend money on, oh....I don't know....fancy hats, that's akin to slavery (especially when these same people are saying the welfare they get isn't sufficient)? We, as people giving money to poor people, have every right to block poor expenditures of that money. If the poor people getting the fruits of our labor don't like it, they don't have to take our money.

You can't ban people from having children. You cannot enslave their reproductive rights because they get welfare.

We give money to poor people because that's the right, ethical, and productive thing to do. We don't give them money to control their behavior.

It's not right or ethical if people are going to have kids to increase their welfare payments.... and don't tell me that doesn't happen, because it sure as hell does. Gaming that welfare system happens all the time.

People enroll in to food stamp programs also and then set up a store front and sell the food they receive for profit. That's all documented. It's not policed nearly enough.

So what? You don't condemn an entire program because some people abuse it. You police the abuse. Again, most fraud is committed by the grocery stores, doctors, and landlords that milk the system for the benefits given to low income people. THAT is documented. But you are willing to let children suffer and starve because some people have more kids than they should? Is that really who you are?

[Anonymous]

I want to know where the 22 trillion number comes from. It says not Medicare and not Social Security. Then what are they counting? It's hard to find almost a trillion dollars in non-defense, non-discretionary federal funds last year. That number seems off. So, I have my doubts. Title 1 money? SSI & SSDI, which is social security, with SSDI being means tested? TANF? Pell grants, which get paid back? Medicaid? You can't discuss this issue without seeing where the money is going. And 1 trillion dollars a year seems like fake news.

So please provide a link to a breakdown of these funds.

[Anonymous]

http://federalsafetynet.com/uploads/3/4/1/4/34142243/welfare_and_spending_on_poverty_over_the_years_2015.xlsx

Half of the figure cited by OP is spending on Medicaid. And most Medicaid beneficiaries are not "the poors". Most medicaide spending is on the elderly (Medicaid pays a large percent of nursing home costs) the disabled (see SSI beneficiaries) and kids (through CHIPS). 1/4 of Americans are covered through Medicaid.

The second largest payout is "negative income tax" aka, the Earned Income Tax Credit. Which you don't get unless you have earned income. Pell grants are up there too. SSI, School lunches and head start are also big line items.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Middle class women and above have higher earning power and dont have to rely on a spouse for economic viability

Poor women don't have to rely on a spouse for economic viability because government and charities provide for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Slavery.

Wow. I agree with the first PP.

So you're saying that if we set up some parameters for people receiving taxpayer money, we are enslaving them? So if we were to say that people on welfare cannot spend money on, oh....I don't know....fancy hats, that's akin to slavery (especially when these same people are saying the welfare they get isn't sufficient)? We, as people giving money to poor people, have every right to block poor expenditures of that money. If the poor people getting the fruits of our labor don't like it, they don't have to take our money.

You can't ban people from having children. You cannot enslave their reproductive rights because they get welfare.

We give money to poor people because that's the right, ethical, and productive thing to do. We don't give them money to control their behavior.

It's not right or ethical if people are going to have kids to increase their welfare payments.... and don't tell me that doesn't happen, because it sure as hell does. Gaming that welfare system happens all the time.

People enroll in to food stamp programs also and then set up a store front and sell the food they receive for profit. That's all documented. It's not policed nearly enough.

Please provide a link for this assertion.

See, for example, any 7-11 on the first day of the month and the last day of the month.

[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.

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.

Here is the short version/summation of the above....

How about we kill free enterprise? How about we create an environment that eliminates incentive? How about we take from the rich and give it to the poor?

[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.

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.

Here is the short version/summation of the above....

How about we kill free enterprise? How about we create an environment that eliminates incentive? How about we take from the rich and give it to the poor?

Well, no, the above post is talking about rewarding production vs. rent seeking. It's interesting that you find that idea antithetical to free enterprise.

[Anonymous]

School lunches started after WW2 because many of those drafted for WW2 were not in good shape because of malnutrition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://federalsafetynet.com/uploads/3/4/1/4/34142243/welfare_and_spending_on_poverty_over_the_years_2015.xlsx

Half of the figure cited by OP is spending on Medicaid. And most Medicaid beneficiaries are not "the poors". Most medicaide spending is on the elderly (Medicaid pays a large percent of nursing home costs) the disabled (see SSI beneficiaries) and kids (through CHIPS). 1/4 of Americans are covered through Medicaid.

The second largest payout is "negative income tax" aka, the Earned Income Tax Credit. Which you don't get unless you have earned income. Pell grants are up there too. SSI, School lunches and head start are also big line items.

one correction. it's not "the elderly"; it's "the elderly with very limited resources" or "poor elderly" who qualify for medicaid.