Mocking The Poor

[Storm Rider]

This is such a complex issue. Relative to other nations the US spends significantly more money and yet we still fall behind in producing successful students. The old saying of, "You can bring a horse to water, but you cannot force him to drink" seems apt in the education scenario. There are so many other influences that create a student ready and prepared to learn. 

 

I don't believe in sending people to prison based upon their use of drugs. That is a total failure and does not help the individual or society at large. Decriminalize all drugs and send violent criminals to prison. Prisons should not be run as employment opportunities for workers. 

 

It would help if we made it clear to individuals that you cannot drop out of high school without direct, immediate consequences.  You choose to drop out you also drop out of any future opportunity for government benefits of any kind i.e. no welfare, no food stamps, no nothing...unless you return and finish your education. We need to identify those students that are better served with vocational technical training and those that are more interested in going on to college. Both are respectable, viable paths to contributing to society. 

 

We need to be just as concerned about the student that is challenged as the one who is not. Currently we spend significantly more on students that are challenged than on those who should be given advanced opportunities for learning. Dumbing down our curriculum is not the way to produce capable students. 

[wenglund]

Actually several studies show that welfare dollars benefit the economy more then their cost because the money is quickly rerouted back into the economy and stimulate it. The last study I read suggested that each dollar put into welfare had a rough economic benefit to the economy as a whole of about $1.07. That is a pretty decent return.

 

I guess, then , we should all go on government welfare so as to ignite a booming economy.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 19, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

The War on Poverty decreased poverty by 40%, and among the aged by far more.

http://irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc251a.pdf

 

 

The so-called "War on Poverty" formally began with the enactment of the Economic Opportunity Act in August of 1964.

 

In 1965, the first year after the act was in force and might have had an impact, about 30 million Americans lived in poverty. whereas in 2011, 46.2 million lived in poverty. (See HERE) In 2012 the number jumped to nearly 50 million. (See HERE) This is an increase of more than 53% or 20 million people.

 

Proportionately, the poverty rate in 1965 was about 15% (ibid), and in 2012 it was more than 16%, (See HERE). This represents a 1% increase.

 

So, I am not sure from whence the 40% decline figure was derived.

 

I looked at the graphs in the article you linked to, and they tend to mirror the numbers in the links above that I am sharing. So, again, I am not sure where you obatianed your 40% figure.

 

Granted, during the early 70's the number of people in poverty dropped to as low as 23 million (or 11%), which represent a 22% decline in numbers from the 1965 level--only a bit more than half of the claimed 40% decline.

 

However, it is hard to say what portion of that decline was attributable to the "War on Poverty" and how much of it was attributable to preexisting factors (the poverty numbers and poverty rates had been in sharp decline for at least a half decade prior to Economic Opportunity Act--EOA),

 

Whateer the case, the overall decline in poverty lasted about 15 years (of which the EOA and subsequent "Great Society" legislation could only have impacted 10 years), but then on average poverty increased over the next 37 years. In other words, at best, the "War on Poverty" had 10 good years, and nearly four times as many bad years down the stretch. 

 

Doesn't sound to me like the "War on Poverty" is being won--and I don't mean this in terms of not completely eliminating poverty.

 

Rather, the numbers suggest that poverty is worse now than when the "War" began.

 

What makes this all the more astonishing is the mind-boggling amounts of money that have been pored into this losing "War." In 2011 alone, according to the Heritage Foundation: "the total cost of federal and state means-tested welfare programs reached $927 billion, an all-time high. Welfare spending has increased 16-fold since the federal government began the “War on Poverty” in the 1960s and is projected only to increase. This does not include spending on Social Security and Medicare [which was more than a trillion dollars combined for that year]." (See HERE)

 

Times this by nearly 50 years fighting, and it gets into "real numbers."

 

[Edit: I neglected to mention that during the nearly 50 years of the "War on Poverty," all but a handful of years had federal budget deficits (see HERE), which means that some of the money spent on the "War" is money we, the people, and the government, didn't have, but borrowed against our and our children's future.]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 20, 2014 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

I guess, then , we should all go on government welfare so as to ignite a booming economy.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Well, it is about as viable a plan as attempting to get your point across with inane and misrepresentative sarcasm.

[wenglund]

Well, it is about as viable a plan as attempting to get your point across with inane and misrepresentative sarcasm.

 

Since this doesn't reasonably apply to me and what I just said, I will just have to take your word for it.

 

[Edit: Please keep in mind that argumentum ad absurdum is a logical, if not highly efficient type of critique.]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 20, 2014 by wenglund

[changed]

How does the church run it's wellfare system?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The so-called "War on Poverty" formally began with the enactment of the Economic Opportunity Act in August of 1964.

 

In 1965, the first year after the act was in force and might have had an impact, about 30 million Americans lived in poverty. whereas in 2011, 46.2 million lived in poverty. (See HERE) In 2012 the number jumped to nearly 50 million. (See HERE) This is an increase of more than 53% or 20 million people.

 

Proportionately, the poverty rate in 1965 was about 15% (ibid), and in 2012 it was more than 16%, (See HERE). This represents a 1% increase.

 

So, I am not sure from whence the 40% decline figure was derived.

 

I looked at the graphs in the article you linked to, and they tend to mirror the numbers in the links above that I am sharing. So, again, I am not sure where you obatianed your 40% figure.

 

Granted, during the early 70's the number of people in poverty dropped to as low as 23 million (or 11%), which represent a 22% decline in numbers from the 1965 level--only a bit more than half of the claimed 40% decline.

 

However, it is hard to say what portion of that decline was attributable to the "War on Poverty" and how much of it was attributable to preexisting factors (the poverty numbers and poverty rates had been in sharp decline for at least a half decade prior to Economic Opportunity Act--EOA),

 

Whateer the case, the overall decline in poverty lasted about 15 years (of which the EOA and subsequent "Great Society" legislation could only have impacted 10 years), but then on average poverty increased over the next 37 years. In other words, at best, the "War on Poverty" had 10 good years, and nearly four times as many bad years down the stretch. 

 

Doesn't sound to me like the "War on Poverty" is being won--and I don't mean this in terms of not completely eliminating poverty.

 

Rather, the numbers suggest that poverty is worse now than when the "War" began.

 

What makes this all the more astonishing is the mind-boggling amounts of money that have been pored into this losing "War." In 2011 alone, according to the Heritage Foundation: "the total cost of federal and state means-tested welfare programs reached $927 billion, an all-time high. Welfare spending has increased 16-fold since the federal government began the “War on Poverty” in the 1960s and is projected only to increase. This does not include spending on Social Security and Medicare [which was more than a trillion dollars combined for that year]." (See HERE)

 

Times this by nearly 50 years fighting, and it gets into "real numbers."

 

[Edit: I neglected to mention that during the nearly 50 years of the "War on Poverty," all but a handful of years had federal budget deficits (see HERE), which means that some of the money spent on the "War" is money we, the people, and the government, didn't have, but borrowed against our and our children's future.]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I brought up many of these same points. I was wrong though because I used that total right wing biased source Wikipeadia.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I guess, then , we should all go on government welfare so as to ignite a booming economy.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Seriously if it works so well as a stiimulous, we all should just go on welfare becaue hey, it is a great return on investment.

[The Nehor]

Seriously if it works so well as a stiimulous, we all should just go on welfare becaue hey, it is a great return on investment.

My point was that money going into it is more efficient economically then, say, building an aircraft carrier. Discussing things with many Right Wingers is frustrating because they are like children and only want to deal in absolutes and not dealing with actual situations. I think they believe ceteris paribus is the normal state of things and not an accepted simplification for analyzing specific correlations.

[wenglund]

Seriously if it works so well as a stiimulous, we all should just go on welfare because hey, it is a great return on investment.

 

I am guessing that the studies are using some form of outcome-based math--the same math likely used by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as the President, where food stamp and unemployment outlays are supposed to pump into the economy as much as 84 additional cents on the dollar and create a lot of jobs. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

 

In other words, there is an incentive to get paid not to work so as to really turn the economy around and put people back to work.

 

For those of us using old-school math, it looks to us instead like there has been an explosion of entitlement spending since Obama took office (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), where the federal and state and local governments are now spending several trillion dollars a year on welfare (see my post above), and yet we are hobbling along under a very weak economy, and poverty has increased (see my post above), and there are  2 million less people working today than when Obama first took office. (See HERE)

 

Even if we go with the inflated job creation numbers most commonly reported by the government, there is this to think about: "Today, the Congressional Budget Office released a report informing readers that extending unemployment benefits for a year, an outlay which would cost the federal government $30 billion, would, because of its allegedly stimulative impact, generate 300,000 jobs. Even if true, neither the CBO, nor the Associated Press in covering the report, noted that this result works out to cost $100,000 per job. Bravely assuming that each new job created pays $40,000 per year, that's a $60,000 loss in value received compared to money spent. The government's tax take at all levels on that amount of earnings is likely about $10,000 or so." (See HERE)

 

The good news is, even in my supposed childlike and absolutist Right Wing view, I am beginning to see what The Nehor means by "efficient." 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 20, 2014 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

Even if we go with the inflated job creation numbers most commonly reported by the government, there is this to think about: "Today, the Congressional Budget Office released a report informing readers that extending unemployment benefits for a year, an outlay which would cost the federal government $30 billion, would, because of its allegedly stimulative impact, generate 300,000 jobs. Even if true, neither the CBO, nor the Associated Press in covering the report, noted that this result works out to cost $100,000 per job. Bravely assuming that each new job created pays $40,000 per year, that's a $60,000 loss in value received compared to money spent. The government's tax take at all levels on that amount of earnings is likely about $10,000 or so." (See HERE)

 

The good news is, even in my supposed childlike and absolutist Right Wing view, I am begining to see what The Nehor means by "efficient." 

 

-

Woefully incomplete. There are additional economic effects other then job creation. I am not arguing that this specific program has a net positive economic benefit but these numbers are skewed to prove a point.

I am glad I could help you expand your vocabulary.

[thesometimesaint]

And those that were on welfare for generations before that were automatically changed and adjusted to the new dynamic?  Talk about evolution

 

They did adjust to the new reality, they further into poverty. Out of sight out of mind.

[wenglund]

Woefully incomplete. There are additional economic effects other then job creation.

 

Perhaps you are right. The one bright spot in the Obama economy is that the very rich are getting richer, if no one else. (See HERE)

 

There is no small irony in the realization that government welfare may not so much help the poor, but it does help the rich.

 

I am not arguing that this specific program has a net positive economic benefit but these numbers are skewed to prove a point.

 

It isn't skewing the numbers to test brazen claims about economic and job growth by looking at over-all economic and job statistics. If, in the end, the rose-colored propositions don't pencil, it isn't the numbers fault.

I am glad I could help you expand your vocabulary.

 

Yes, at times, inadvertent counter-intuitive object lessons can be instructive.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

The so-called "War on Poverty" formally began with the enactment of the Economic Opportunity Act in August of 1964.

 

In 1965, the first year after the act was in force and might have had an impact, about 30 million Americans lived in poverty. whereas in 2011, 46.2 million lived in poverty. (See HERE) In 2012 the number jumped to nearly 50 million. (See HERE) This is an increase of more than 53% or 20 million people.

 

Proportionately, the poverty rate in 1965 was about 15% (ibid), and in 2012 it was more than 16%, (See HERE). This represents a 1% increase.

 

So, I am not sure from whence the 40% decline figure was derived.

 

I looked at the graphs in the article you linked to, and they tend to mirror the numbers in the links above that I am sharing. So, again, I am not sure where you obatianed your 40% figure.

 

Granted, during the early 70's the number of people in poverty dropped to as low as 23 million (or 11%), which represent a 22% decline in numbers from the 1965 level--only a bit more than half of the claimed 40% decline.

 

However, it is hard to say what portion of that decline was attributable to the "War on Poverty" and how much of it was attributable to preexisting factors (the poverty numbers and poverty rates had been in sharp decline for at least a half decade prior to Economic Opportunity Act--EOA),

 

Whateer the case, the overall decline in poverty lasted about 15 years (of which the EOA and subsequent "Great Society" legislation could only have impacted 10 years), but then on average poverty increased over the next 37 years. In other words, at best, the "War on Poverty" had 10 good years, and nearly four times as many bad years down the stretch. 

 

Doesn't sound to me like the "War on Poverty" is being won--and I don't mean this in terms of not completely eliminating poverty.

 

Rather, the numbers suggest that poverty is worse now than when the "War" began.

 

What makes this all the more astonishing is the mind-boggling amounts of money that have been pored into this losing "War." In 2011 alone, according to the Heritage Foundation: "the total cost of federal and state means-tested welfare programs reached $927 billion, an all-time high. Welfare spending has increased 16-fold since the federal government began the “War on Poverty” in the 1960s and is projected only to increase. This does not include spending on Social Security and Medicare [which was more than a trillion dollars combined for that year]." (See HERE)

 

Times this by nearly 50 years fighting, and it gets into "real numbers."

 

[Edit: I neglected to mention that during the nearly 50 years of the "War on Poverty," all but a handful of years had federal budget deficits (see HERE), which means that some of the money spent on the "War" is money we, the people, and the government, didn't have, but borrowed against our and our children's future.]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

 

http://www.chn.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/edelman.pdf

[The Nehor]

Perhaps you are right. The one bright spot in the Obama economy is that the very rich are getting richer, if no one else. (See HERE)

 

There is no small irony in the realization that government welfare may not so much help the poor, but it does help the rich.

-

I said this myself earlier in the thread when I identified Wal-Mart as the biggest welfare user in America. You disagreed then. Why are you agreeing now?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My point was that money going into it is more efficient economically then, say, building an aircraft carrier. Discussing things with many Right Wingers is frustrating because they are like children and only want to deal in absolutes and not dealing with actual situations. I think they believe ceteris paribus is the normal state of things and not an accepted simplification for analyzing specific correlations.

Right Wingers? Lol anyway serious Nehor, if it all really worked and was this great return on investment as you claim and these studies, as quote by Pelosi and others, why don't we expand it? I said nothing about aircraft carriers or anything else. Were in have I dealt with absolutes? What the issue for me is that ineffencey of government. I am not sure you get that. I know you are a smart guy, and no I am not trying to disparage you. You really are a smart guy and any one that reads your posts can see that. It just seems that some times you spend more time coming up with a cleaver response and reading into something more than you take to actually read what we have been writing.

 

Bottom line is that when government gets involded in almost (notice this is not even an absolute) that they mess it up or do it worse in just about every way, then if we just let other take care of the issues. Wade has done a great job showing the ineffeciny of government. Do you disupte that? If so on what basis?

[thesometimesaint]

The Nehor:

 

Thought you might like this

 

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18416-ten-examples-welfare-for-rich-and-corporations

[wenglund]

I said this myself earlier in the thread when I identified Wal-Mart as the biggest welfare user in America. You disagreed then. Why are you agreeing now?

 

I am not agreeing now. There is an important difference between "user" and potential "indirect beneficiary" as well as a difference between "facetious" and "serious."

 

I hope this helps you expand your vocabulary.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

http://www.chn.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/edelman.pdf

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62549-mocking-the-poor/?p=1209336150

 

Cue up, "Will It Go Round In Circles?" by Billy Preston.

 

Actually, people are free to ignore the data I have compiled and immovably and repeatedly appeal instead to their own favored resources--not that it would happen otherwise. And, I should respect this. There is no compulsion for critical thinking and scrutiny of narratives on either side.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The Nehor:

 

Thought you might like this

 

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18416-ten-examples-welfare-for-rich-and-corporations

 

It is interesting to see organizations posturing under the moniker of "truth" who deceptively conflate "subsidies" with "tax breaks."

 

But, it evidently works. Good people are taking the bait in droves these days.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Freedom]

If not welfare, where should a 28 year old single mother of 3 go for support? What about a 32 year old male suffering from a mental illness? I see a lot of abuse of the system, and it frustrates me that many people on welfare seem to have nicer things than I do, but nobody seems to be providing an alternative. 

 

Walmart gets a lot of blame for perpetuating poverty, but Walmart is a symptom and not the disease. The disease is poor education, or the wrong education. I know many a person in a dead end job earning very little income who earned a bachelors degree in English lit or history. There are a lot of working poor, but the answer is to stop it before it begins. Better funding for preschools and elementary schools, more support workers for under privileged youth. $10,000,000/year in support will save $10,000,000,000 in crime. The rich people of the world are not CEO's, they are doctors, lawyers, chemists, electricians and botanists. The reason they earn a high income is because there are not enough of them. 

 

We need more training for single mothers and support for their children. The unemployable require psychiatric care. I meet many people who are either too mentally ill or too lazy to keep down a job. There is no follow up because the government employment agency lack the staff to follow up. The ironic thing is, if another million were pumped into support workers, income tax revenue would go up by fifty million. 

[wenglund]

If not welfare, where should a 28 year old single mother of 3 go for support?

 

My grandmother lost her husband when she was in her mid 30's, and was responsible for 5 children, and this during the throes of the "Great Depression."

 

What did she do?

 

She got a job at a local hospital and trained to become a nurse, and relied on her neighbors and Church to get by at times, and had admirable work ethic and was resourceful enough to help out some of her neighbors as well as her aged mother. Her eldest son also assisted in paying some of the bills.

 

To me, a better question to ask is, what caused poverty to radically decline for years prior to President Johnson enacting his so-called "Great Society" legislation (including the "War on Poverty") and when Wal-Mart was just a twinkle in Sam Walton's eye?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 20, 2014 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My grandmother lost her husband when she was in her mid 30's, and was responsible for 5 children, and this during the throes of the "Great Depression."

 

What did she do?

 

She got a job at a local hospital and trained to become a nurse, and relied on her neighbors and Church to get by at times, and had admirable work ethic and was resourceful enough to help out some of her neighbors as well as her aged mother. Her eldest son also assisted in paying some of the bills.

 

To me, a better question to ask is, what caused poverty to radically decline for years prior to President Johnson enacting his so-called "Great Society" legislation (including the "War on Poverty") and when Wal-Mart was just a twinkle in Sam Walton's eye?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You mean she didn't starve to death because some evil republican hated poor sinlge women so much that he refused to vote for welfare that would have helped this poor helpless, victim, of a woman?

[Senator]

How in the heck is this thread still open??

[Freedom]

My grandmother lost her husband when she was in her mid 30's, and was responsible for 5 children, and this during the throes of the "Great Depression."

 

What did she do?

 

She got a job at a local hospital and trained to become a nurse, and relied on her neighbors and Church to get by at times, and had admirable work ethic and was resourceful enough to help out some of her neighbors as well as her aged mother. Her eldest son also assisted in paying some of the bills.

 

To me, a better question to ask is, what caused poverty to radically decline for years prior to President Johnson enacting his so-called "Great Society" legislation (including the "War on Poverty") and when Wal-Mart was just a twinkle in Sam Walton's eye?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You cannot compare the culture and financial demands of another generation to today's world. Today, if a mother goes to work, social services will show up and take her children away unless they are properly cared for. The fact is, we cannot blame a dead president, we need to deal with the current situation. Yes, your grandmother was a marvelous lady, but many thousands of others in her day who did not have this support died of starvation.