Fact: $15 trillion has been spent on the war on poverty. What on earth do we have to

Dear friends,

We have spent $15 trillion to help people out of poverty since 1963 and the poverty rate today is as bad as it was when the "War on Poverty" was begun. Question -- what are we doing wrong and how do we get more people into the workforce where they pay taxes rather than merely consume our federal taxes as they do now?

For example, if a mother with 5 children has a husband who lives with her at home and works a a decent job and supports the family, she loses her welfare payments and food stamps and Medicare. This federal rule is a strong incentive for people not to get off welfare.

Source: The figure of $15 trillion appears in a 2012 report by Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, who argued that the results of the war on poverty have been meager for the amount of money that has been spent. About $12 trillion of the spending was federal monies, which he calculated by adding up spending on means-tested anti-poverty programs since 1964, and then adjusting to current dollars. The other $3 trillion was spending by state and local governments, which he said was a rougher estimate.

 

The lowest-income 20% of the population is defined as "the poor". So the question is, are these people better off than the same bottom fifth was, say, 50 years ago? 100 years ago? How can we determine this? By lifespan changes, or by square feet of living space, or what?

A related question is, who are these people? The WSJ noted that within any given 5-year period, about 80% of the individuals rotate out of "the poor", to be replaced by other individuals. Over a 20 year period, almost nobody has stayed in the bottom fifth the whole time.

So if these people are better off on average according to most criteria, and if nearly all of them escape this bottom fifth within a few years, is this failure?

At different times in my life, I have been in both the bottom and the top 20%. I don't FEEL poor.

 

We have had enormous positive effects from the spending and programs enacted, and the economic gains and wealth growth it has engendered..

The Model Cities programs, Urban Renewal programs and others like lifted entire neighborhoods up from third world status to reasonable places to live. IA know, my own childhood urban neighborhood was converted from a "Dogpatch (literally what everyone else called it after the Snuffy Smith Dogpatch cartoon) of open septic tanks, mudhole dirt streets, people living on water from polluted shallow wells, with regular outbreaks of infectious hepatitis and other diseases, and any vacant land a free garbage dump site for the people from the other parts of town.

Low interest loans to help people pay for city water and sewage and pave the streets, grants to turn the dump-gullies parks, improve the school, and provide some policing, and grants and loans to allow the homeowners to upgrade their houses to legal code status with real roofs and windows and so much more.

A thousand ghetto-dwellings became homes for proud homeowners that to this produces good taxes and living for residents. This happened in THOUSANDS of rural and urban neighborhoods across the country, helping america become a much more thoroughly first world country, and making millions of people part of the prosperity of the USA.

But much of the money too has simply gone to keep people from suffering the harshest parts of poverty - adequate food for adults and children, heat in the winter and some cooling in the summer in southern climes, basic medical care in overwhelmed clinics, some improved schools and job programs.

When we look at countries like Brazil that are relatively prosperous, but the country has huge sections of pre-teen children living in the streets, shacks and lean-tos in massive slums, the War on Poverty has kept America from such a fate so far, but the Right's fight to make the wealthy wealthier and the poor poorer is overcoming those gains, and soon America will be no different than those places.

The right also likes to ignore that some of the "poverty spending", like food stamps, were simply done as backhanded subsidies to the Ag sectors to boost their profits and prices.

But ALL the poverty spending goes directly into our GDP, and produces tremendous economic stimulus, unlike so much of our military spending that is dead end economically, and also so much goes overseas or tot he wealthiest who THEN send it overseas.

However, what is laughable about this "report" is Tanner has worked to amplify every bit of the figures he uses, although the main cost was and is Medicaid. At $226 billion per year, its a lot of money, and in the not so remote past, conservatives were suggesting national health care as a way to reduce those costs. Of course, now that Obama had proposed a REAL program, they oppose it utterly, even though Obamacare is specifically designed to put a big dent in such spending.

Go figure the Right Wing hypocrisy.

 

It's not that hard to figure. If Romney had been elected in 2008 when Democrats controlled Congress, we'd have Romneycare nationwide, and the right wingers would accept it.

Obamacare is despised because Obama proposed it, not because of the program itself. Most of the provisions were Republican suggestions anyway. If Hilary had won the nomination, I think it would also receive less hatred. There's something about Obama that incites the sort of deep personal revulsion we've been seeing.

 

I doubt that seriously. The GOP tried to push amnesty in 2006. Something both sides of the aisle wanted, but their constituents burned up the phone lines and filled their email boxes. They shelved it. If Romney had proposed RomneyCare for the nation, the same thing would have happened. The reason it didn't happen under Obama is because the media made sure that the dissent never got aired.

Proof is the fact that Americans still don't want amnesty, despite a change in who controls the Congress and White House.

 

More poverty then ever.

 

Do you have data to back that up or are you just talking out your ass, because I wouldn't accept Romneycare either?

 

Sorry we have helped people IN poverty. There is a difference. Interesting that somebody wants to claim $15 trillion in 2012 dollars. If you were not bias in your views, you would usually show it in 1963 dollars or at least in mid- years dollars.

Tell me which programs promised to wipe out poverty? Which country doesn't have poor?

Very good question. First, we stop blaming the victims and just work on how we can change it. Yes some people stay on government support because there are no jobs that will pay them enough to take care of them and/or their children. The poverty level for 5 children and 2 parents is $34,360 . What is the average worker wage? Got any jobs at $34,360 for new employees beside brain surgeon. Even for an individual, how many part time jobs are needed to go above $11,170 {the poverty level). Did you know, that the more people make, the less they get from government? Did you know many do like being on the government dole? Health costs are a big reason for staying on welfare. How many of the jobs you want them to take include health benefits?

Now, I see people wanting to get off welfare finding no real jobs available that would pay more. We should fix that. We offer educational training with no day care or transportation money. We should fix that. And we should pay all workers better so that everyone can be lifted. Then we can go after those real lazy bums who don't try to get off the government dole.

 

But the Republicans in Massachusetts (Romney IS one, remember?) passed it, and are happy with it. It works.

 

What do we have to show for the war on poverty? Nothing. Just like the war on drugs.

 

You missed the point! "The poor" are a statistical category. Being "poor" doesn't mean starving in the streets anymore, but the statistical category hasn't changed. In the US, this money has improved the life if the poorest citizens tremendously. By any standards anywhere in the world, they are fairly well off. They can live under roofs, they can eat regularly, they can find medical care, they can afford shoes. We've forgotten what "poor" USED to mean.

 

If someone is healthy enough to work, they should work. The reason we taxpayers are out $15 trillion is because certain groups of people tend to take advantage of the system. If someone has two arms and two legs and is physically able to work, they should be working for that welfare, food stamps, the section 8 hours, or the free medical care. I don't care if they are building bridges or cleaning up trash from the side of the road. This system is broken and folks need to start voting the idiots out of office that are pandering to the lazy voters that don't deserve handouts. If you are on public assistance and are not a Vet then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. That would fix the problem in a heartbeat.

 

Except of course for the vastly improved living standard of the poorest citizens.

 

A lot of it is just mismanaged. Plus we give corporations free license to rob the working class, and commit criminal fraud, raid pensions etc.

Since this time, I'll bet we helped corporations steal more than 15 trillion.

We are also intentionally devaluing our own currency to support wasteful spending. This means people have less.

They claim there's a modest inflation rate, but it's a lie because they omit things that have been skyrocketing in price from their figures, things we still have to buy. Even if the rate were true, a modest rate means nothing so long as the wages don't increase to the same degree. 3% inflation vs. 1% average wage increase is still bad, even over a year.. But when that goes on for decade after decade like it has been, the disparity accumulates, and that's when you see some real problems start to manifest.

We allow a corporate middle-man to profit off health-care which jacks up the price of health-care.

Aside from reclaiming our government from the corporations that commandeered it, another idea is to just put welfare takers to work.

If we are paying them anyway, not have them picking up trash or enhancing our infrastructure, etc? Why spend money on contractors, while others on our payroll sit at home all day doing nothing to earn their check?

If I were claiming, I would happy to do my part.

There should be no free welfare; there should be government jobs. Work people for however many hours it takes for them to earn that sum they otherwise receive, it won't cost us a penny more. But we could start doing some manufacturing and such.

 

Okay, I'll use a righty tactic. Show me your evidence. I believe that able-bodied people do work for it. Wasn't that the grand "Workfare" that righties claim even though Clinton campaign on it?

Love the last one. Take away their vote. GOP is trying to do that but, dog gone it, the Constitution gives them the right to vote.

 

What if we've only spent the same $1 trillion 15 times?

 

Agreed!

The government often passes legislation to keep people in poverty.

As an example, if a mother with 5 children has a husband who lives with her at home and works a a decent job and supports the family, she loses her welfare payments and food stamps and Medicare. This federal rule is a strong incentive for people not to get off welfare.

Have you seen this article? It is very good!

Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-60000-welfare-spentper-household-poverty_657889.html

 

You are correct, Flintc.

Most "poor" people in America today have flat screen color TV sets, cell phones, a comfortable place to live and plenty of food to eat thanks to the ubiquitous food stamp program. If you want to see really poor people go visit India or China or Indonesia!

[video=youtube;tpAOwJvTOio]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio[/video]

 

Quoted for the truth. You want to see what real poor people look like, walk the streets of Kabul. After seeing that, I vowed that I had no right to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about money ever again.

 

I believe we should be lowering our tax burden by simplifying our social safety nets. Unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines could be used to solve simple poverty in our republic, with existing legal and physical infrastructure and could draw participants from more expensive means tested programs.

 

Obama is black. If he cured all cancer and heart disease and developed an intergalactic space ship some people would still call him a ______.

 

If your tax burden was reduced by $1,000 would it really make any real difference to you? I doubt it.

 

Yes. We subsidized more laziness. More non-accountability. More parasites.

And we got what we paid for. Of course, all along the Democrats, by making folks wards of the state, were only buying more voters. They got what we paid for too.

We're starting our third generation of useless dumbass moochers. They abound now.

 

That's what you get when you engage in employment discrimination.

 

I wonder what poor people do with all that money! Probably save it and invest in derivatives!