PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

PeakTrader:

The poverty rate was falling sharply, until the “War on Poverty” was fully implemented and extended after 1964. Chart:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/poverty_time.jpg

****

I suspect, the “War on Poverty” put a floor on “deep poverty,” to virtually eliminate it. However, it also placed a ceiling to trap many in poverty.

****

Robert, I think, the War on Poverty very likely trapped many people into poverty, because people respond to incentives and understand trade-offs.

HOW THE WELFARE STATE HAS DEVASTATED AFRICAN AMERICANS

“Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin)—herself a former welfare recipient—acknowledged in her oral testimony: “I once had a job and begged my supervisor not to give me a 50-cents-an-hour raise lest I lose Title 20 day care.””

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672

****

Jack, I was responding to Beene’s comment that free trade causes poverty and debt, which isn’t true. Free trade raises living standards, both domestically and internationally, although the U.S. gains more than its trading partners. Countries with free trade policies tend to gain more than countries that restrict trade (e.g. through tariffs or other trade barriers).

I certainly don’t want a permanent poverty class. I’d like people to learn positive values from their parents, rather than grow up in a single mother household, watching TV all day, not working or attending school, spending money on drugs and drinking, comitting crimes, or when they get a job, injure themselves or others, or create property damage.

****

Jack, you’re the one who doesn’t have a “clue.” Full-time work tends to lift people out of poverty, particularly the longer they work. And, poverty is often temporary. For example, when I was working full-time and paying for school full-time, I lived in poverty for a while.

Poverty in America: More than 46 Million below the Official Poverty Level, More than 10 Million “Working Poor”

“More than 46 million people, or about 15 percent of the US population, lived below the official poverty level in 2011, according to the US Census Bureau.

A new report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that the “working poor” account for 10.4 million of this number.

More than 14 percent of the estimated 25 million part-time workers currently in the labor force are classified as working poor, according to the BLS, compared to 4.2 percent of full-time workers.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-46-million-americans-below-the-official-poverty-level-more-than-10-million-are-working-poor/5331766

Rescuing the American Dream: Culture’s Power to Reduce Poverty
Peter Wehner, Ethics and Public Policy Center – August 22, 2011

“Children who are raised in broken families are far more likely to drop out of high school, use drugs, commit violent crimes, have children outside of marriage, develop mental health problems, become homeless, drop out of the labor force, go on welfare, and experience poverty. Indeed, the poverty rate for single-parent families is almost six-times the rate for married-couple families.

“The best anti-poverty program for children is a stable, intact family,” according to former Clinton administration officials William Galston and Elaine Kamarck.

More than 40 percent of all births today are out-of-wedlock. America has the highest divorce rate in the Western world. By the age of eighteen, over half of American children have lived apart from their fathers for a significant portion of their childhood.”

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=3690acc9-1246-48d8-a1fe-cd83e8d06c7c

****

Although, I believe safety nets, and labor standards, can improve society, if welfare, or the War on Poverty, didn’t destroy black families, what did?

HOW THE WELFARE STATE HAS DEVASTATED AFRICAN AMERICANS

“The out-of-wedlock birth rate among African Americans today is 73%, three times higher than it was prior to the War on Poverty. Children raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to grow up poor and to eventually engage in criminal behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes. In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4% (about 3 times higher than the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. were living in poverty.”

****

Daniel, how does that explain fatherless black families? What about the opportunity cost of giving away trillions of dollars in handouts, paid for mostly by the employed “masses” or “middle class.”

****

If a woman has a choice of $30,000 in free benefits (e.g. low income housing, a monthly check, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.) for not working and being a single mom, or a $30,000 full-time job, she may not like much, being a married mom, I wonder which she would choose

****

Joel, my statement is a generalization why there may be so many black single moms.

Here’s an article:

In many states, welfare can pay better than an honest day’s work
August 21, 2013

“A combination of food stamps, temporary cash grants, WIC, and housing assistance is worth a pre-tax value more than $30,000 in 16 states.

All told, the federal government spent $668 billion on those programs last year, according to the report, which also took into account $284 billion worth of welfare spending at the state level.”

http://watchdog.org/102295/in-many-states-welfare-can-pay-better-than-an-honest-days-work/

****

It seems, the U.S. is spending about $700 billion a year to fight poverty. So, why has poverty, fatherless families, and crime skyrocketed for blacks. Wasn’t the War on Poverty to help blacks and other disadvantaged groups?

----

Urban Legend:

The irrefutable fact demonstrating the silliness of the safety-net-as-hammock theory is that the unemployment rate dropped below 4% in 2000 and the involuntary part-time rate was very low. The safety net was there then, too, but when full-time jobs were plentiful, those supposedly lazy people took them. Why do we take such sheer idiocy seriously. It should be a case of “cause” bringing forfeiture of tenure.

People want something to do, and they want to be paid more for it than simply staying out of near-starvation poverty. Duh!

----

PeakTrader:

Yes, employment, with decent wages, will lift people out of poverty, not lasting, frequent, or generous welfare.

****

Actually, government spends over $900 billion a year on anti-poverty welfare. So, it seems, poverty is at a high level.

Examining the Means-tested Welfare State: 79 Programs and $927 Billion in Annual Spending
May 3, 2012

The governmental safety net has three basic components: 1) Social Security and Medicare for the elderly; 2) unemployment insurance and worker’s compensation; and 3) anti-poverty or means-tested welfare programs.

The means-tested welfare system consists of 79 federal programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care, social services, training, and targeted education aid to poor and low-income Americans.

In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare came to $717 billion. State contributions into federal programs added another $201 billion, and independent state programs contributed around $9 billion. Total spending from all sources reached $927 billion.

According to the President’s FY 2013 budget plans, means-tested welfare will not decline as the recession ends but will continue to grow rapidly for the next decade. Under Obama’s budget, total annual means-tested spending will be permanently increased..Combined annual federal and state spending will reach $1.56 trillion in 2022.

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $19.8 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) on means-tested welfare.

http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2012/05/examining-the-means-tested-welfare-state

****

If the War on Poverty was designed to reduce poverty, why is poverty so high, and much higher in the black community?

It seems, the poverty rate was falling sharply before the War on Poverty was enacted and expanded:

Chart:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/poverty_time.jpg

****

Given over $900 billion a year of spending on poverty, why hasn’t the poverty rate declined?

Chart:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/shirakawa/Poverty%202009.jpg

****

Rescuing the American Dream: Culture’s Power to Reduce Poverty
Peter Wehner, Ethics and Public Policy Center – August 22, 2011

“The “Success Sequence:” Graduate from high school, get a job, get married, and then have babies.

Children who are raised in broken families are far more likely to drop out of high school, use drugs, commit violent crimes, have children outside of marriage, develop mental health problems, become homeless, drop out of the labor force, go on welfare, and experience poverty. Indeed, the poverty rate for single-parent families is almost six-times the rate for married-couple families.

“The best anti-poverty program for children is a stable, intact family,” according to former Clinton administration officials William Galston and Elaine Kamarck.

More than 40 percent of all births today are out-of-wedlock. America has the highest divorce rate in the Western world. By the age of eighteen, over half of American children have lived apart from their fathers for a significant portion of their childhood.”

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=3690acc9-1246-48d8-a1fe-cd83e8d06c7c

****

The data reflect government spending on poverty hasn’t reduced poverty, and poverty may be caused, at least in part, by unstable broken families.

Over the past 40 years, real income has doubled, government has mushroomed, and spending on poverty exploded. Yet, the poverty rate is the same.

Corporate America is not responsible for your behavior or choices. Why continue to squander trillions of dollars on programs that haven’t reduced poverty or just maintained poverty?

It would seem that money can be better spent to actually reduce poverty, which should be the goal of anti-poverty programs.

****

While real income doubled, government grew faster than income, and spending on poverty grew faster than government, the poverty rate remained the same.

Maybe, government spending on poverty created a net increase in poverty. Afterall, the real economy is much larger and real spending on poverty is much higher. Yet, the poverty rate didn’t shrink.

This chart shows per capita real income doubled, since the mid-1960s. Output = GDP = Income:

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/indicators/GDP-per-capita-overview.html?Real-GDP-per-capita-since-1960-log.gif

****

Jack, I guess, you just want more spending on poverty, regardless of effectiveness. Blindly throwing money at a problem can make it worse, and there’s an opportunity cost.

****

Those comments are expected by rigid ideologues, who are in denial, dismissive, dishonest, and delusional.

They make wacko libertarians look open-minded, rational, competent, and witty.

---