Tuesday, September 16, 2014

The Failure of the War on Poverty



Today, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty. Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.
Since its beginning, U.S. taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.
One third of the U.S. population received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013.
The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year 






was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)
Over 100 million people, about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.
rectorchart
But today the Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 a few years after the War on Poverty started. Census data actually shows that poverty has gotten worse over the last 40 years.
How is this possible? How can the taxpayers spend $22 trillion on welfare while poverty gets worse?
The typical family that Census identifies as poor has air conditioning, cable or satellite TV, and a computer in its home.
The answer is it isn’t possible.  Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state.
For most Americans, the word “poverty” means significant material deprivation, an inability to provide a family with adequate nutritious food, reasonable shelter and clothing. But only a small portion of the more than 40 million people labelled as poor by Census fit that description.
The media frequently associate the idea of poverty with being homeless. But less than two percent of the poor are homeless.  Only one in ten live in mobile homes. The typical house or apartment of the poor is in good repair and uncrowded; it is actually larger than the average dwelling of non-poor French, Germans or English.
According to government surveys, the typical family that Census identifies as poor has air conditioning, cable or satellite TV, and a computer in his home. Forty percent have a wide screen HDTV and another 40 percent have internet access. Three quarters of the poor own a car and roughly a third have two or more cars. (These numbers are not the result of the current bad economy pushing middle class families into poverty; instead, they reflect a steady improvement in living conditions among the poor for many decades.)
The intake of protein, vitamins and minerals by poor children is virtually identical with upper middle class kids. According to surveys by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the overwhelming majority of poor people report they were not hungry even for a single day during the prior year.
Bono Quote, free enterprise
We can be grateful that the living standards of all Americans, including the poor, have risen in the past half century, but the War on Poverty has not succeeded according to Johnson’s original goal. Johnson’s aim was not to prop up living standards by making more and more people dependent on an ever larger welfare state. Instead, Johnson sought to increase self-sufficiency, the ability of a family to support itself out of poverty without dependence on welfare aid. Johnson asserted that the War on Poverty would actually shrink the welfare rolls and transform the poor from “taxeaters” into “taxpayers.”
Judged by that standard, the War on Poverty has been a colossal flop. The welfare state has undermined self-sufficiency by discouraging work and penalizing marriage. When the War on Poverty began seven percent of children were born outside marriage. Today, 42 percent of children are. By eroding marriage, the welfare state has made many Americans less capable of self-support than they were when the War on Poverty began.
President Obama plans to spend $13 trillion dollars on means-tested welfare over the next decade. Most of this spending will flow through traditional welfare programs that discourage the keys to self-sufficiency: work and marriage.
Rather than doubling down on the mistakes of the past, we should restructure the welfare state around Johnson’s original goal: increasing Americans capacity for self-support. Welfare should no longer be a one way hand out; able-bodied recipients of cash, food and housing should be required to work or prepare for work as condition of receiving aid. Welfare’s penalties against marriage should be reduced. By returning to the original vision of aiding the poor to aid themselves, we can begin, in Johnson’s words, to “replace their despair with opportunity.”
 poorinam-UPDATE-01

Perhaps its time to provide a system that actually incentivises work  and an economy that creates jobs.  Perhaps the reincarnation of the workhouse is appropriate... safe, supervised living space for individuals and families that provides 3 hots and a cot and an economy unshackled by regs that currently drive job opportunities to other places.  People want to talk about reality in America... it is much different, at its worst, than poverty in 70% of the rest of the world...
I hear the socialist clatter now.... "We will never go back, we will never stop expanding the state regardless the results of our efforts"

28 comments:

  1. Scott Glad to see this thread posted here.

    This study is the real deal. The LBJ Great society has proven to be a massive government failure,as are most government programs.

    I can't wait to here the liberals responses to this,Here Rickey,hoe do you spin this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish he would have waited a couple of weeks. I just ordered a book from Amazon on American poverty and the working poor. Maybe we can revisit this in a few weeks after I have received and read the book.

      Delete
    2. Rojayalso, what is it that makes this study the real deal and any disagreement NOT the real deal?

      Delete
    3. OK Max.......So just what is it that makes this study Not the real deal ?

      Just where is it that I said that any disagreement was not the real deal ?

      This study points up the real problem here,that is the Liberal approach to solving poverty in this country has not done so.
      What has happened is a welfare society has been created and now is some three generations deep.

      There is no incentive for these people to look for employment.Many times I offered employment at a very reasonable rate of pay only to be told that they would loose some of their benefits.

      No incentive to work leads to no gains in poverty reduction,therefore most never leave government assistance,and why should they.

      Living in a cave Max ?

      Delete
    4. "No incentive to work leads to no gains in poverty reduction,therefore most never leave government assistance,and why should they."

      You honestly have no disagreement from me on this. I want people to work. I want them to be self sufficient. I also want them to have access to the sorts of things that will help them get ahead. Some of this thinking puts me at odds with far left liberal crowd.

      When I read a statement like yours here, what I hear is a very tired old saw that the government benefits are soooooo fat and juicy, we are encouraging people to not work. From my point of view, wages have gotten so shitty despite the fact that workers have gotten more productive that business has disincentivized working too. Some in here, has to be a better balance. If you want people to leave a situation where they do nothing and get $100 dollars a week for food to go to a situation where they bust their ass for $150 and never get a raise, why bother?

      Ronald Reagan is no less a failure than Johnson at ending poverty. Do you disagree with this?

      Delete
  2. Ops typo on how,oh well will give Rickey something to comment on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. HHS.gov
    Healthcare.gov
    LetsMove.gov
    Kids.gov
    USA.gov
    Grants.gov
    USAJobs.gov


    Search for Adoption Assistance in Your State
    Report Child Abuse and Neglect
    Child Care Resources
    Division of Family Development
    Department of Human Services
    Health and Safety Regulations for Child Care and Early Education
    Find Child Support Resources by State
    Find Fatherhood Programs in Your State
    Information for Current or Potential Foster Parents
    Search for Head Start Centers in Your Area
    Help for Runaway and Homeless Youth
    Teen Pregnancy Prevention
    School Breakfast and Lunch Program
    Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program
    Find Financial Education Programs in Your State (AFI)
    Search for Community Economic Development Projects by State
    Locate Domestic Violence Help in Your State
    Health Care Education and Training for Low-Income Individuals (HPOG)
    Job Training for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI)
    Find Help with Rising Energy Costs in Your State (LIHEAP)
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you William that adds nothing to the discussion.

      Delete
  4. 1st I find your 13 trillion dollar figure a bit out there. Can you give proof of that number?
    I agree with you that many poor have too many amenities. But let's look at where they might get them. #1 would be family. While a family member may be able to furnish a T V or computer as a gift they may not be able to furnish full time support. I have a daughter and son in law who are not very well off. They always had his work truck. When she had her baby we gave them our old car and we bought a new one. See how that works. They now have two cars. We did it because he works out of town quite often and we wanted her to have transportation if something happened with the baby. It also gives her some freedom to get what she needs without depending on us or waiting until we have time to take her somewhere.
    Now they are not so poor that they can't survive but they do get WIC for the baby only, and Medicaid for the baby only. They are currently uninsured because even with Obamacare subsidies they chose not to buy on the exchange. I don't know why they made that horrendous decision but they did.
    We also have the newly poor, those who fell out of the middle class during the last recession. They already had the things you mention. Should they have to give up more of what they have worked for just to get help? Many have already lost their homes.
    I was a big fan of the Clinton/Gingrich welfare to work program and believe it is time to bring that back into play.
    There are some good census bureau reports out there if you’ll take time to look them up. Poverty actually did decrease in the 1990's. The census bureau designates any area with 20% or more of the people in poverty as a poverty area. In the 90's poverty in these areas dropped from 20% to 18.1%. In the first decade of this century we undid all the good that had been done and that 18% slipped to 25% of the people in poverty areas now living in poverty.
    There are more problems for those in poverty, and although many live as you state, most do not. In many areas of poverty it is a struggle to just find fresh food. Ever heard of a food desert? These are areas where no major retailer dares to go because of crime, poor worker pools, etc. In these areas the poor have to depend on mom and pop's that charge extraordinarily high prices and eat up what benefits these people get.
    These poor live in the worst areas of the country. High crime areas where no one else would live.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Then we have the working poor. Yes Scott they are out there. My daughter and her husband are an example. I also work with many more everyday in the restaurant business. Before the recession our workforce was more high school and college students. Our average age of employee was probably about 25. Since the recession we have an older crew. It probably averages 35. And many have two jobs and still find it hard to make it. These are hard working people Scott, tipped employees many of them and that's all they have. I don't fault these people for getting some aid for their families if they need it.
    The assumption of you and the heritage foundation is that all these 33% who are receiving some kind of benefit are sitting around on their dead asses doing no more then extending their hand at the first of the month is that is so not true.
    Many can't make a decent living because in the past they made poor decisions on how to prepare for life. I don't feel sorry for them. Others Scott, have fallen on hard times and are temporarily in need of some assistance. I Scott, would never say that we will never go back. I would say that we go forward under the Clinton/Gingrich welfare to work plan and prepare these people to take care of themselves. I really don't think anyone in America likes freeloaders. But you assume that people like me do because I am liberal. That's is not what it is about at all. It is about extending the hand to help those who are physically able to become self sufficient. There are some who can't because of sickness or disability and we should take care of them as a people. There are those who won't because they are lazy. They should be forced to. But most of our assistance cases fall into the working poor. People who work everyday but just don't make enough to support their families. With a couple years of help, and some additional training they might someday be able to. Very few are proud of collecting government assistance. Most would rather not. It is a need not a desire. What is the answer? I don't know. If we are only able to create service jobs then let's do raise the minimum wage for these jobs. Not to $15 hr that is ridiculous. But I don't see 10 as out of the question. That would put the lowest paid full time employee at 20K a year. I wouldn't want to have to live on that. That's tough for a single person let alone someone with a family. And Scott how many might that lift, if not out of poverty, at least of the dole.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Of course I would also consider the highly bias foundation that this report came out of.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You don't suppose that Congress uses welfare to buy votes do you. Naah! that's ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The authors main premise that the war on poverty has been a failure is something I have to agree with wholeheartedly. We have not moved many out of poverty with government spending, and I also believe that by and large, government spending has made the problem worse. There is quite a bit of fluff in here though is truly useless. For sake of reference, a 32 inch high definition HDTV can be had for 200 bucks, a microwave oven can be had for 60 bucks, a desktop computer with 19 inch monitor can be had for 350 bucks, internet can be had for 15 bucks a month. To say that someone who has an abundance of cheap gadgets is not in poverty, is ridiculous to me.

    The author makes an awesome and telling statement, "For most Americans, the word “poverty” means significant material deprivation, an inability to provide a family with adequate nutritious food, reasonable shelter and clothing." First of all, I question the veracity of this statement, although I'm sure Heritage has an obtusely worded survey that gave them the answer they were looking for. Secondly, why do Americans have this view? They have this view, IMO, because this benefits a consumer mentality. IF people can consume, they are NOT impoverished. This is extremely important. If we can keep the argument framed in terms of poverty=lack of TV and internet, than we can stay away from a dangerous view that poverty=lack of resources to get ahead and escape poverty.

    I have come to accept something I long rejected in conservative thought, namely that certain types of government spending make the problem worse. IMO, the utter lack of response by the government at the start of the Great Depression let a complete free fall happen. The pictures of history speak for themselves. One unpleasant outcome for the rich, however, was that the government pummeled them with an iron fist of taxation, sharply regulated the bank industry to deleverage, and after WW II, educated millions under the GI bill and built the infrastructure that liberals like me endless babble about. And we did it on the taxes of the wealthy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In contrast, in 2007, actually, since the late 90's, the Fed and legislative houses have been spending shitloads of money to basically buy off the middle class. Mick makes a fair assertion of using welfare to buy votes. Democrats do it for the poor, Republicans do it for the rich. With the trillions spent by Bush and Obama, we avoided a repeat of the Great Depression. Things were and are bad, but not that bad. Because we didn't see people jumping out of buildings and didn't see nightly images of soup lines all across America, there was not sufficient outrage that existed in Roosevelt's day. So here we stand. While Republicans wail and gnash their teeth about what a shitty POTUS Obama has been, the reality is that since has taken office, only one section of America has done stunningly well. We've taxed the poor mightily with inflation in order to keep our stock markets screaming higher. While at the same time, we have watched personal income suck ass. The article above does not even touch that subject.

    To me, poverty means you make shitty wages, have no education, and have no real way to get out of that cycle. People who grow up living shitty impoverished lives, with no decent schools and no decent role models to show them what to do are going to end up continuing to live shitty impverished lives. Is this really hard to understand? Sadly, the best the government could do would be to just let the entire fraudulent system known as the American economy fail to the point where people are just inches from armed revolt. This is not an argument to kill and eat the rich as some kind of solution to solve everything. On the other hand, if we truly want people to get out of poverty, we need to make investments in the sorts of things that will actually help people leave poverty. Free enterprise IS a cure. Paying people such a shitty wage that they need food stamps is not free enterprise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have almost 50 million people on food stamps. Almost one in six Americans.

      How in heck can anyone even begin to make the case that our fifty year old war on poverty has been successful. Wrecked homes, wicked levels of abortion, fatherless children, part time employment mentality, low information voters, 30 year olds living with mommy, pathetic student debt loads,,,,,

      Thank you LBJ for your fucking "Great Society."

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. rick0427September 16, 2014 at 10:09 PM

      actually the poverty rate fell last year from 15% to 14.5%. The poverty rate of children under 18 fell from 21.8 to 19.9. Poverty in 1959 stood at close to 25% today it is 15%. There have been gains. But Poverty is not static. The better the economy the more people leave poverty and the government dole. Honestly I don't agree with Max that we are not coming out of depression. I think we are and the high numbers of the U6 unemployment rate bears that fact. We didn't see soup lines we didn't see jumpers but that is a strong testament to the excellent safety net that has been developed for our citizens. Also just read that with the economic slowdown in China the government is pumping up the banks. seems it wasn't such a bad idea after all except that we need to reduce the size of the banks now. China looked at two solutions, the austerity of the EU and the government action of the US. Look which solution they chose.

      Delete
    4. Of course they followed the US. Socialists stick together.

      Delete
    5. Rick,

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing that things are getting better and I agree that when the economy improves, people leave the dole. My point is that those in poverty leave the dole, I don't believe they will be getting very far ahead. They will still be poor, have fewer opportunities and continue to remain trapped in an existence where they are doing nothing but working just to eat and stay off the streets. I absolutely believe that our safety nets prevented the worst from happening and I'm not discounting this was a noble thing. The downside is that unlike after the crash that caused the great depression, we've done nothing to create a path to prosperity for those in poverty or even for those in the middle class.

      Conservatives lose their fucking minds about food stamps, and to their credit, they bitch about all the money that was given to Wall Street. Still, they want to just double down on all the stupid logic that caused this recession. Glass/Steegall did exactly what it was supposed to and worked like a freaking charm. Frank/Dodd is a freaking joke. It's inevitable that no matter how much money we give away to business to exploit the middle class, we will still reach a point where business will be over a barrel because there will be no gimmicks left to arbitrage American labor and at that point, we truly will see the return of a middle class. This is 20 years away at best. We have rewarded the worst behavior for causing this recession.

      Delete
    6. Max what this report shows is how far the "considered poor" have actually advanced. That my friend is a testament to the policies of the Great Society. Although not a smashing success, if we consider what The Scott posted above as today's poor, then can we really call it a total failure?

      Delete
    7. Whether we call it failure depends on what your standard is. The fact that the poor can be in poverty and still possess gadgets they couldn't have dreamed of having before is as much a testament to technology and also a frank reminder that we no longer produce such items because they are made in places like China. The poor don't earn more money, and they dont' have better access to education to get ahead, but they CAN buy electronic opiates. The poor don't have access to good paying jobs, they are screwed for life if they have any sort of criminal offense and since it's now acceptable to run credit reports on someone as a precursor to employment, the poor AGAIN have their reality held against them. Respectfully Rick, I believe the only progress we have really made is in our ability to include the poor as consumers who buy shit they don't need.

      Storm makes a great point below, nothing lasts forever. Just as I think it's pure lunacy to say the CRA caused the housing collapse (a favorite assertion of many small brains), I think it's also a bit specious to say that Johnson failed. For quite awhile, the CRA did what it was supposed to as I believe Johnson's efforts did. Over time, however, programs get taken advantage of by people who figure out an arbitrage. IMO, we have made poverty a lot tougher to escape despite the fact that those in poverty may possess more material goods than those in poverty in the late 60's.

      What we have today is what I call a Reagantopia, we've changed how we FEEL about poverty rather than actually succeeded in creating a true way out of being in poverty. Government spending IS keeping people from starving, but it's also preventing a bigger backlash against inequality from occurring because articles like this can show how the poor really don't have it so bad because look at all the stuff they can buy! It's one thing if those in poverty don't take advantage of opportunities to get ahead, it's another though when there really aren't any opportunities open to them.

      Just my .02

      Delete
  11. Sometimes I feel like we are all useful idiots. There are many facets to this argument and I don't think we have enough information to choose sides. Enough time has passed since the inception of these programs to see the abusive greedy hands reaching into the great government sack. Attempts at reform have made it more difficult for the truly needy to obtain benefits while the abusers of the programs will continue to find a way get around the rules. In the end, we are a compassionate people. Conservatives and liberals both hate to see human suffering. We will always want to have a social safety net. The problem is that people make money from these poverty abatement programs and people can live off of these programs if they really have no self esteem or ambition. It makes the perfect marriage of the immoral.

    Entitlement programs and military expenditures make up the bulk of government spending. Some of these entitlements have been partially funded by your payroll taxes. You expect to collect your fair share when you get old. You will probably collect more than you paid in. Businesses collect lots of money from people spending their entitlement money - way more than they pay in corporate taxes. The military just spends money with military contractors. This is how we have such massive deficits. A little bit of government restraint will cause a massive wave of spending cuts in lots of businesses. We can't have people suffering out in the streets, now can we?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am sorry to have posted a topic and come so late to the discussion... life apologizes. Unfortunately the discussion quickly devolved into the partisan. It’s the discussion of points that is lacking around here substituted by the extreme bias used in defending ideology. The question isn’t if the messenger is biased but is the message accurate.

    There are many reasons for poverty and from my vantage point many of those reasons emanate from the government (particularly federal). Good intentions perhaps but understanding and execution are so flawed that it becomes a huge waste of resource and ultimately an enabler of unfulfilled lives. The reasons are many, interactive and some originate with policies that are older than the majority of us on this forum.

    Since 1996, roughly 2.5 million families have left the welfare rolls. Critics predicted that welfare reform would throw millions into greater poverty. In fact 3 administration officials resigned in protest. Instead, it led to modest reductions in poverty, particularly for children, black children, and single-mother households. Most of those who left welfare found work, and of them, the vast majority work full-time. As you would expect, studies show that as former welfare recipients gain work experience, their earnings and benefits increase.

    But whatever successes welfare reform has brought, more can be done. And if we have learned anything by now, it is that there are limits to what government programs—even reformed ones—can do to address the root causes of poverty.

    If we are serious about fighting poverty and we know that a decent paying job is a means to that end we must end those government policies, high taxes and regulatory excess that inhibit growth and job creation.

    The other thing we must do is educate our children. Not in social dynamics or modern human sexuality, that is a parent’s job. (and yes parents do have an important role as do all members of a nuclear and extended family) Instead we must teach our children to read well, we must teach them to think critically without telling them what to think. We must teach them to be determined. To move out of poverty one needs to truly want more, make the effort to gain it, seek self-employment over normal employment, gain the necessary skills to accomplish it and establish personal values like organization, cleanliness, honesty, and yes, family. Unless the poor are determined not to be poor, poverty cannot be solved. Of course access to education and job opportunities are critical.

    If education is important why, when we see such irrefutable results is a voucher system not implemented? We see the success of independent magnet and charter schools yet resist their funding. Perhaps the inability to control the message, as with home schooling, is the root of the problem. Or maybe the lost of union votes? Is our educational policy about the children or is it about adult job security and social engineering?

    Continued >>>>

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rick points out that poverty was at 25% in 1959 and that it is now at 15%. Very true, but how did that rate get to just under 9% from 25% before it got to 15%? After WWII poverty though not consistently monitored is considered to have been over 30% and from that point the rate fell consistently, in a near straight line to 1969 where Great Society funds were just starting to be felt. Poverty in 1973 was just under 9% and has never been that low again. So I have to ask: Why the precipitous fall from 1959(current poverty charts) until Great Society programs kicked in and poverty decline stopped. The cynic would say that after spending of trillions that a level of 10-15% is just low enough to placate decent and just high enough to insure the poverty industry continues to survive or maybe less cynically, one might think that people just hate to admit that they got it wrong.



    One of the biggest poverty creators and purveyors of segregation is the New Deal and Great Society programs in housing. Federal housing programs(in general) have created centers of poverty. Within those housing projects people tend to be of the same constitution as the makeup of the impoverished communities in which they were built. Poor but stable communities were destabilized by the large influx of eligible poor and the scope of that poverty tended to expand. People were surrounded by nothing but poverty, crime and absolutely no opportunity. Much like Bush in Iraq who won the war but didn’t consider the peace, the central government built the dwellings but never had a clue about neighborhoods.

    Which brings us to individual opportunity and the federal government’s heavy hand. Ill considered government policy has directly affected the cost of education and the debt burden associated with it. Quota standards have placed our young adults in classes and institutions that they are ill prepared for and in areas of study that prepare them little for actually making a living.

    Government meddling has directly created the asset bubble that put affordable homes out of the reach of many citizens and when that bubble had the opportunity to rectify itself the government doubled down to keep those prices artificially high while real wages slipped away. Government policy directly set in motion and abetted the subprime mortgage situation. Whatever you want to say about greedy banks that made the loans the government signed off on about 3/4th of them.

    Out of fear or favor the government has ignored the rule of law in the banking and finance industry. It has allowed institutions to pay ‘cost of doing business’ fines for money laundering, mortgage fraud, derivatives fraud, insurance fraud, fraud upon the courts, circumvention of statutory property filing laws and fees and yet after the laws put in place after the Enron and Worldcom trials to hold CEO’s and CFO’s personally responsible for the conducts of their corporations, no one went to jail and what we got instead was an industry pandering Dodd Franks. Glass Stiegel would not have prevented the collapse of Leman Brothers or under the table derivative trading or unbacked Derivative insurance or mortgages written to unqualified people... but regulations in place that held the Federal Reserve responsible for banks purchasing worthless insurance would have and the FDIC loan percentage regulations would have stopped many worthless loans being made. People scream more laws and regulations; we already have more than enough to monitor truly bad conduct and far too many that stifle good conduct. Discretionary regulation appears to have become something of a new orthodoxy in the theory and practice of financial-market regulation. I think this orthodoxy is mistaken and dangerous. Discretionary regulation … violates the rule of law and it tends to make the global financial system more fragile and less resilient.


    Continued >>>>

    ReplyDelete
  14. This does not even address the policies of trade, tax and regulation that moves jobs and companies to other countries, stifle creativity and push people to accept business arrangements, much like class room quotas that mismatch business, employees and customers. Nor does it talk about ‘immigration reform’ which is no more than the previous immigration reform laws. We recognize a shortfall in the number of jobs because of the need for ‘newly poor’ programs, particularly low paying ones and at the same time import more of the same skilled workers. Our visa programs give deference to employers desire to circumvent our own labor poll for more easily expendable labor. We talk about specialized jobs that Americans aren’t qualified for but the business does not need to prove that.. it really means ‘not qualified at the price point’. One thing I find quite fascinating about this whole immigration debate is how the Democrats have attached themselves to the very business that they claim exploit labor. Between democratic war hawks and pandering to the chamber of commerce, it’s hard to tell who is who any more.
    As you can see, the web of government intervention in general and federal central government in specific has created laws, regulations and programs that conflict in their goal, tie people’s hands, exacerbate social problems that would naturally resolve themselves if left alone and force the hand of free enterprise that, despite liberal claims, has uplifted the entire populations of the countries in which they are allowed to thrive. It is interesting to watch the two left of centers’ try to define poverty and justify the existence of products like phones, tv and microwaves in the lives of poor people being a function of the Great Society... keeping in mind that each one of those cheap appliances exist because the jobs that make them went to other countries.....
    An interesting outcome of the Scottish independence referendum is that people want more local control over the affairs in their life and now that the ‘No’ vote has prevailed, Westminster will now have to make good on devolved regulation of tax, healthcare and social programs... not only for Scotland for which these changes were promised, but for the other three states of the United Kingdom as well because of the referendum. People all over the world are getting tired of the nexus that political elites in faraway places being clueless about what is needed, will work and wanted locally. Interestingly, the only large block of voters to vote yes were labor voters of Glasgow who voted not for more jobs and greater prosperity but for the promise that if Scotland gained its independence they would receive greater social services than are provided currently...

    The end... but not really...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It is interesting to watch the two left of centers’ try to define poverty and justify the existence of products like phones, tv and microwaves in the lives of poor people being a function of the Great Society... keeping in mind that each one of those cheap appliances exist because the jobs that make them went to other countries....."

      Do you even read my comments? I clearly said the flow of cheap shit had everything to with gains in technology and the loss of production to countries with cheap labor. It's nice, I guess, that you can call us out on our partisan ways wilst launching into a Wally Lamb length dissertation on why government hand outs ruin everything. Life is simple, take away all handouts, every problem will be fixed. If only the damn liberals could be denied power.

      Delete
    2. I understood what you said and it in part is part of the disagreement you had with Rick... his comment: Max what this report shows is how far the "considered poor" have actually advanced. That my friend is a testament to the policies of the Great Society. Although not a smashing success, if we consider what The Scott posted above as today's poor, then can we really call it a total failure?

      Your response was: 2Whether we call it failure depends on what your standard is....."

      That little exchange alone constitutes a disagreement about the definition of ‘poor’... No?

      At any rate Max. Whether the explanation is long and detailed ( Admittedly I waste my time doing that) or short and to the point, you won’t admit that the web of liberal programs had worked against each other to produce a result no better than when the Great Society programs started.

      Again you through up an all or nothing approach to anything someone not from the left says. Someone says reduced laws you accuse them of wanting anarchy. Someone points out the failings of government intervention, particularly broad stroke federal programs you throw out the usual “You don’t want the government in anything.” But you never address the real failings of these programs because to do that, you would have to admit that many are counter productive, most are mismanaged and all waste more resources than they should because the problems they are meant to address are little understood and the solutions ill conceived. It would mean having to roll back the 'accomplishments' of the great progressive movement and we can't have that, now can we?

      Delete