$9 Trillion Didn't End Poverty -- What to Do?

red states rule

red states rule

New member
Since the "Great Society" liberal Dems have had their way, and accumlated wealth transfers of over $9 trillion to fight poverty

Well, we are being told poverty in America is worse then ever

To fight poverty, liberals are proposng more of the same. More taxes and more spending

The article was written in 2004 - so the total may be closer to $10 trillion - almost the entire sum of the national debt




$9 Trillion Didn't End Poverty -- What to Do?
by Jenifer Zeigler


Jenifer Zeigler is a welfare policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on September 3, 2004

This article appeared on Foxnews.com on September 1, 2004.


At the Republican National Convention this week, there was a lot of talk about money. Pay raises for firefighters. Money for Swift Boat ads. Money to rebuild Iraq, and so on. One thing the pundits and presidential candidates didn't say much about, however, is how much money has been spent fighting the "war on poverty"--$9 trillion and counting. Yes, $9 trillion.

Yet, as the Census Bureau just reported, poverty in America is up. So what do the candidates propose we do?

Well, one candidate believes the solution is to spend more money on social programs, while the other believes the solution is to spend more money on ... social programs. Since 2000, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (the traditional welfare program) spending has increased 6 percent. What did we get for that money? A higher poverty rate. Obviously a stagnant economy and poor job market are responsible for the increase in those living below the poverty line. However, spending more money on social programs is not raising them back out of poverty.

Jenifer Zeigler is a welfare policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

The best way to reduce the poverty rate is to convince people to avoid poverty in the first place by finishing school, delaying parenthood, and getting a job (any job). High school dropouts are roughly three times more likely to end up in poverty than are those who complete at least a high school education. A common reason why teens drop out of high school is out-of-wedlock births. Teenage pregnancy initiates a single mother into a life of dependency that is difficult to overcome, especially if she goes on to have additional children. Over half of welfare money is spent on families that began with a teen birth.

Getting a job as a solution to poverty may seem like common sense. Granted, not every job pays a wage that will catapult a family into the middle class. However, every job provides job experience, and that leads to a better job. Maybe today's minimum-wage, service industry employee is not on a track for management. But he is showing that he is a reliable worker who can learn and perform duties, something a future employer will value.

Despite all this common sense, Democrats refuse to endorse welfare reform that would emphasize actual work experience. They would spend money to send single moms to college or train them in a specific skill for which there may be no demand in the job market. Republicans are not doing much better by encouraging social spending on programs like marriage initiatives, suggesting that coupling off the poor will somehow raise them out of poverty. In the past 40 years, we have spent at least $8.9 trillion (in constant 2003 dollars) on the "war on poverty." Isn't it time that one of the candidates admit we cannot spend our way out of poverty?

If education, pregnancy prevention, and employment are the solutions to poverty, we need a candidate that advocates policies that promote them. Education reform, including school choice, would provide a real opportunity for children to start on an equal playing field, prevent "at risk" students from dropping out, and produce a more competitive national workforce. Pregnancy prevention programs need to educate teenagers about how to avoid pregnancy, as well as emphasize the life-altering repercussion of parenthood as a minor. Finally, job growth results from a dynamic economy. Lower taxes, less regulation on business and industry, and freer trade would produce the jobs necessary to escape the bonds of poverty.

So, listen this campaign season as candidates offer their solution to the rise in poverty. Be wary of promises to throw more money at the problem. That clearly doesn't work

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2807
 
How poor are the poor? From US Census data:



The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

•Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
•Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
•Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
•The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
•Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
•Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
•Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
•Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.


http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm
 
a very high percentage are obese.

where the liberals fall on there face is where your going. Obama got elected because of Anti-war sentiment and the faltering economy.
No because the poor were in so bad of shape.
 
Topspin said:
a very high percentage are obese.

where the liberals fall on there face is where your going. Obama got elected because of Anti-war sentiment and the faltering economy.
No because the poor were in so bad of shape.
Click to expand...

So under Obamacare will they be required to enroll in a government approved gym before they get treatment say for bad knees, heart problems, or be required to eat "approved" foods?

Looks like the poor are not so poor as the left would have us believe
 
Topspin said:
40 acres and a mule
Click to expand...

So we had no obligation to compensate the Freedmen for the 2 centuries we held their ancestors in bondage? The worst thing this country ever did was end slavery only to leave the Freedmen at the mercy of their former masters. The second worst thing this country has ever done is implement a welfare system designed to promote the dissolution of families through divorce and illegitimacy.

All of the lib(ertarian)s and neocon(federate)s, talk a good game about how the War on Poverty has wasted billions in tax money, but they'd all balk if the government tried to regulate the behavior (sex, drug use, wage slavery) that lead to the War on Poverty in the first place.
 
flaja said:
So we had no obligation to compensate the Freedmen for the 2 centuries we held their ancestors in bondage? The worst thing this country ever did was end slavery only to leave the Freedmen at the mercy of their former masters. The second worst thing this country has ever done is implement a welfare system designed to promote the dissolution of families through divorce and illegitimacy.

All of the lib(ertarian)s and neocon(federate)s, talk a good game about how the War on Poverty has wasted billions in tax money, but they'd all balk if the government tried to regulate the behavior (sex, drug use, wage slavery) that lead to the War on Poverty in the first place.
Click to expand...

No, there was no obligation to compensate anyone. We changed the status of Blacks to Free americans, they were no longer considered property, but were finally given their rightful status as a person. The worst thing that happened after that is allowing a racist supreme court to usurp more power by creating an incorporation doctrine (that 'interpretation' shit you're fond of believing in). The second worst thing that this country did was not immediately correcting that by removing every justice from their seat and reconstituting the supreme court, or writing a very clear statute of law that tells the USSC, in no uncertain terms, that the 14th Amendment applies every federally protected right against the states. Instead, we let the supreme court dictate the next 100 years of inequality.

your second paragraph is just chock full of fail.
 
red states rule said:
How poor are the poor? From US Census data:



The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

•Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
•Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
•Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
•The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
•Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
•Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
•Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
•Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.


http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm
Click to expand...

It's refreshing to have someone on this board like you telling how it really is. Keep up the good fight.
 
Great. 9 trillion, over more than 40 years.

I could've told you beforehand that it wasn't enough to "eliminate" poverty - even Sweden, which spends massive amounts on poverty elimination, still has a 2% child poverty rate (1/8 of ours, but it's still there). But you'd be an idiot to say that it hasn't done a lot of good.
 
uscitizen said:
Poverty will never be eliminated, just as neither will greed.
Click to expand...

Well I could tell you several ways to totally eliminate poverty, they're all just horrendously expensive. When you tell people the facts and figures, at the end of the day most of them just decide that there are more important things...
 
Watermark said:
Well I could tell you several ways to totally eliminate poverty, they're all just horrendously expensive. When you tell people the facts and figures, at the end of the day most of them just decide that there are more important things...
Click to expand...

creating an entire civilization of poor people with a handful of elitists running the country is not a sound proposal to defeat poverty.
 
poverty, like unemployment, is a necessary by-product of capitalism. It will never go away. The best we can do is recognize that fact and try to make life bearable for those living in poverty.

The author of the piece in the original post ignores this very basic fact and his policy suggestions (to the extent that he makes any) are just plain stupid. Now, don't get me wrong, they are good policies to implement, but they won't do much to end poverty.
 
Dungheap said:
poverty, like unemployment, is a necessary by-product of capitalism. It will never go away. The best we can do is recognize that fact and try to make life bearable for those living in poverty.

The author of the piece in the original post ignores this very basic fact and his policy suggestions (to the extent that he makes any) are just plain stupid. Now, don't get me wrong, they are good policies to implement, but they won't do much to end poverty.
Click to expand...

Horsefuckingshit, Communist China has higher unemployment
 
Topspin said:
So the early point was trying to be made that free market capitalism has inherently higher unemployment. It's exactly opposit, that's what.:cof1:
Click to expand...


You need to learn to read. No one said anything about "inherently higher" anything. I simply said that unemployment and poverty are by-products of capitalism.

Saying that high unemployment exists in China doesn't refute anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top