22 Trillion Dollars on the War on Poverty - Does the Right Wing Have a Point?

[qwlauren35]

I was on Facebook and saw an allusion to this figure, and I wanted to understand where it came from. It's from a right wing organization, and I think the figures are purposely inflated, but the point that's made seems accurate. The War on Poverty has failed, because it has not reduced poverty. It has only made our impoverished people more comfortable.

I want to see data on what percentage was spent on economic development, start-up money for small businesses, wooing corporations and factories back to the US, education and training, etc.

Heritage.org doesn't break down what the spending went for. If somebody knows, please post.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years

[clydefrand]

1. The only real way to get and keep people off poverty is

to CREATE JOBS THAT PAY A LIVABLE wage. In the mean time, we do need to at
least keep them from starving, they have to eat and have shelter.

[jwirr]

6. Many of the people in poverty are disabled, elderly or they are children. There needs to be more

than jobs.

[LonePirate]

2. The primary problem is believing anything coming from The Heritage Foundation.

They have the same grasp on reality as Baghdad Bob.

[Sherman A1]

22. Precisely

[daleanime]

3. How much you spent doesn't matter....

when you flush most of it down the corporate greed hole.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Heritage, they are making the welfare queen case

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, at the beginning of the War on Poverty, only about 12 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Nearly three-quarters have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.[9]
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and a quarter have two or more.
Half have a personal computer; one in seven has two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
Forty-three percent have Internet access.
Forty percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
A quarter have a digital video recorder system such as a TIVO.
Ninety-two percent of poor households have a microwave.

There are many others that would actually explain how deindustrializing and good jobs leaving have had a lot more to do with this. As well as the 1996 act signed by Clinton that completely reformed welfare, but forgot shit like child care, How are poor mothers going to work without that?


But here form Time

http://time.com/3659383/war-on-poverty-1964/

This graphic is particularly good

?quality=65&strip=color&w=500&h=303

And here, a link to a panoply of studies from Demos

http://www.demos.org/category/tags/poverty

[daredtowork]

37. Could it be people buy stuff WHEN THEY HAVE A JOB?!nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. That is part of it

but a lot of teh stuff is also bought at places like Goodwill

I could have gotten a good coffee maker the other day for example. I just happen to have one... though the price was 2 bucks.

[daredtowork]

41. Gifts, Freecycle, Kid earned money mowing lawns...nt

[dembotoz]

5. and there is something wrong with poor folk being more comfortable??

Sat thru a Ron Johnson talk on the failure of the war on poverty
Too many lies and distortions to count
Would think this is same

[qwlauren35]

13. Personally, I have no problem with Americans being comfortable.

But I also think they need better paying jobs.

[hifiguy]

7. That figure sounds about as bogus

as a Nixon Three-Dollar Bill

[Angry Dragon]

8. How much is spent on the War on Drugs??

[LittleBlue]

9. Many poverty relief measures are designed to make people feel less guilty

rather than actually uplift poor people out of poverty.

I recall an example from college where the US bought huge quantities of excess agricultural goods and sent them to an African country to relieve hunger. While undoubtedly noble, it caused the farmers in this country to be wiped out. They could no longer sell their goods as the market was flooded with subsidized western agricultural grain. With local farms ruined, this region became even more dependent on western aid. Worse, no plan existed to fundamentally change the situation.

How does one express concern with the lack of progress without being accused of being right-wing? I look at Baltimore today 10 years after Katrina the same way I looked at New Orleans 13 years after Rodney King. All the welfare, busing, scholarships, privilege talks, a revamped police force that is 70% black, black mayor, yada fucking yada but where is the progress? Nothing has changed. Guaranteed despite whatever we come up with today I'll be middle aged 20 years from now talking about the same shit despite x,y,z new programs being rolled out. A few more blacks will join the middle class and it will be held up as progress as we embark on 100 more years of black people at the bottom of a caste system. Waiting on white people coming to this mythical epiphany is a long road to nowhere.


Something radically has to change for real change to occur. And it may be a solution that we don't like.

[qwlauren35]

15. What are you thinking of?

I think forcing multi-national corporations to bring back jobs to the US is key. I just don't know how to make it happen.

And I'll bet that TPP doesn't help.

[LittleBlue]

17. Financial penalties

I'm not against denying US-based corps access to our markets if they don't want to employ Americans. They shouldn't have all the benefits of being American while skirting the responsibilities. If they don't like it, go be subjects of the Chinese authorities keeping in mind they don't hesitate to execute CEOs for corporate crimes.

But many of the solutions I propose wouldn't be popular and might result in a hide, so I never bother to voice them

[daredtowork]

40. If you are talking about solutions that will affect welfare recipients

I recommend you study the programs and actual conditions people live under before you start theorizing on improvements. The hides usually occur when someone is bloviating from a place of ignorance: stereotyping the poor, taking Fox Facts and political propagand for granted,or pimping some favorite economic theory without regard to the lived experience of actual people on welfare.

This is an area where people are on the edge of homelessness, they could easily lose a limb from poor medical treatment, and they might get killed by a cop for looking at them funny. So it's important that you know what you're talking about when you opine.

[ieoeja]

10. The "War on Poverty" ended in 1982.

Reagan slashed taxes on the rich, raised taxes on the poor, and slashed services for the poor.

Up to that point it was actually doing quite a bit of good. For many families, later Boomers or early X-ers were the first members of the family to go through college. About half myhigh school class worked on farms while the other half were paid by the government to clean roadsides or clean parks.

Want a Facebook reply? Try this one on for size.

Many Conservatives today call for "Workfare" to replace "Welfare". Make the poor do odd jobs, like cleaning rodesides or parks. Ignoring for the moment that many people on Welfare actually have a low paying job they would have to quit if we replaced Welfare with Workfare while many others are simply incapable of work, would you support that?

After they bite send this response:

We actually had that in the 1970s. It was part of the War on Poverty. But Reagan thought those jobs were "unnecessary" and a "waste of the taxpayers money". So like most of the War on Poverty, he eliminated it. Which makes your statement about the "War on Poverty failing" kind of pointless. It was doing some good, but we ended it over 30 years ago.

[gratuitous]

24. Bingo

The reason we ended the so-called war on poverty is because it was being too successful. While millions of citizens continued to be poor, millions more were actually benefiting from that rising tide. Reagan and his robber baron minions put a stop to that almost as soon as they grifted their way into office, and instituted their voodoo economics (by the way, conservatives, that appellation came from George H.W. Bush, so don't blame me).

The United States has been the hapless victim of a 35-year-long social experiment to see what happens when all the Wealth created by Labor is vacuumed up by the Overrich, while wages remain stagnant at subsistence levels. One of the more famous forays into this horrid experiment culminated in 1789 in France. It did not end well for anyone, really, but the Overrich got back a soupçon of the suffering they had so freely dispensed for decades. The lesson of those times appears to have been forgotten.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

11. why are you citing a Heritage article?

Heritage is the poster child for laissez faire and libertarian government and no holds barred capitalism. Of course they would say its a failure. I'm not saying the War on Poverty is or was a success but to bring a Heritage article here to DU? What are you thinking?

[qwlauren35]

16. Because I wanted it discussed.

If we don't look at what the conservatives are saying, how can we work toward moving forward? I frankly think it's more important to find common ground that lets us move forward than to constantly harp on our disagreements.

If we agree that encouraging economic development is key to fighting poverty, then we just have to work on how, throw out ideas, find common ground, move forward.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

19. The article has no credibility.

eom

[JaneyVee]

29. We don't need know what conservatives are saying....

Conservative economists have been wrong about everything.

[daredtowork]

42. Ah, a Transpartisan

Well we all know where that leads: Triangulation, New Democrats, The Third Way. A continuous stealthy pulling of the party Right until the same old Wall Street oligarchs have the Democratic vote.

No, thank you.

[dawg]

12. Here's a link to an informative post on Paul Krugman's blog dealing with this issue.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/poverty-policy-truths/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body

It basically shows that we aren't spending nearly as much in the war on poverty as we think we are spending, but that we have, nevertheless, still made some headway towards improving the lives of the less fortunate.

By the way, anything from the Heritage Foundation should be ignored. It isn't any good, even as a starting point for discussion. And that isn't because they disagree with us; it's because they are intellectually dishonest.

[Rex]

14. The War on Poverty turned our country into a plutocracy where the poor have it worse than ever.

The RWing will always be against social welfare...yet they WORSHIP at the feet of corporate welfare! GO FIG!

[kentuck]

18. And we spent even more on our defense department...

But we did not wipe out all our enemies. We still have threats around the world. We are not safer. What's the difference?

[0rganism]

20. did they mention what we bought for that money? at all?

> Heritage.org doesn't break down what the spending went for

guess not.

right wingers like to pretend that it's all price tag and no product. never mind that the economic multiplier of money spent on "welfare" and welfare-like programs for the poor & underprivileged historically has been higher than money used on tax cuts for the rich & influential.

[qwlauren35]

23. I noticed that there was no breakdown.

That's why I wondered if there was a more credible article with such.

[0rganism]

28. the wikipedia article might be considered more credible

i certainly put at least as much credence in random (albeit moderated) people on the internet as i would in anything published on the heritage foundations website, so why not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

interesting points worth noticing:
"In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973."
(i.e., it worked as designed in the short term after enactment)

"Poverty among Americans between ages 18–64 has fallen only marginally since 1966, from 10.5% then to 10.1% today."
(i.e., the changes and modifications since then, including e.g. "trickle down", have not significantly improved its effectiveness)

[hughee99]

21. Which "point"?

Some on the right have tried to make the point that we shouldn't have started the "war on poverty" in the first place. I don't agree with that. A few have suggested that much of the money hasn't been spent as effectively as it could have been to combat poverty. They might have a point. Still, saying the money was wasn't spent as effectively as it could have been isn't really the same thing has having a better solution that would be more effective.

In reality, the war on poverty largely ended some time ago, and those programs that have continued have to contend with the same government's war on the poor.

[qwlauren35]

25. It's the second "point" that I'm thinking.

Again, I am annoyed that the article does not break down where the money was spent. I agree that it makes the article less credible.

But I think the left and low-end right (those on the right who are not so rich that they just don't give a sh*t) may agree that lifting people out of poverty is the best use of the money.

[rurallib]

26. before I even look why would I believe anything the Heritage Foundation says?

What little I know is that the War on Poverty had early success, but Republicans effed it up and turned it into a mess.

May I suggest looking for liberal or balanced sites or perhaps some university study to corroborate before citing the Heritage Foundation.

[JHB]

27. It's been years since I saw a critique of those HF numbers...

...so long that I think at the time the number they were bandying about was $5trillion. Run searches with that number too.

From what I remember, they counted every means-tested program, some forms of tax breaks, and other things that I don't remember clearly. They may have also adjusted the numbers from decades ago for inflation, just to make the number bigger and scarier. They may also have double-counted some things.

The upshot was that they were redefining "anti-poverty spending" ridiculously broadly so that they could kitchen-sink everything they could into their number. By far most of what they counted as "anti-poverty" spending were in programs and tax breaks that benefitted middle-class families -- while pretending it was all welfare and food stamps.

The whole point of it was to produce an "academic" report with a big scary number for politicians to wave around when pushing for cuts to programs.

[on point]

30. 30 trillion on defense spending. Is the world safer?

[progressoid]

31. Ninety-two percent of poor households have a microwave. !!11

I just saw one for free at a garage sale. And recently sold my nephew's for $15. What a luxury!

That article is so full of shit, it's making my monitor smell.

[JHB]

32. I don't think these are exactly what you're after, but they may...

...help you run searches for more information.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculated that approximately 70 percent of the federal spending that Rector classified as “welfare” went to households that did not receive Aid to Families With Dependent Children, the core welfare program in recent decades. Instead, most of the money went to non-AFDC households with elderly, disabled or “medically needy” individuals, as well as students and low-income workers–not groups most people would associate with “welfare.”

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-ever-present-yet-nonexistent-poor/

MISLEADING \”WELFARE\” FIGURE:
In January 1995, Heritage\’s Robert Rector claimed in congressional testimony that \”the U.S. has spent over $5.3 trillion on welfare…since the onset of the War on Poverty\” without decreasing poverty. But Heritage\’s often-cited \”welfare\” figure — further inflated in recent years — is highly misleading. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has documented, 70 percent of the federal spending Heritage classified as \”welfare\” went to households that did not receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the core welfare program during the 30-year period. Most went to non-AFDC households with elderly, disabled or \”medically needy\” individuals, as well as low-income workers — not the jobless poor typically associated with \”welfare.\”
See \”How Much Do We Spend on Welfare?\” by Sharon Parrott (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, publication #95-032). To acquire the report, contact CBPP, [phone].

http://www.accuracy.org/release/272-is-the-heritage-foundation-credible/

[TexasBushwhacker]

33. No they don't, and here's why

If the minimum wage had gone up in the past 20 years to keep up with inflation and increased worker productivity, it would be $18 to $22 an hour. We would have a fraction of the people living in poverty that we now have. In turn, we would be spending less on food, housing and medical aid. We would also be spending a lot less on EITC, which has pretty much replaced the old AFDC. Wage increases would translate into more money going into Social Security and Medicare, and more going into federal and state income taxes. People who have more money are more likely to rent oe buy a nicer home, which increases local property taxes. When people are making a living wage, they have money to save, maybe even invest in WALL STREET. Increased income at the bottom goes straight back into the economy. We all do better when we all do better.

I realize that the minimum wage isn't going to jump to $18, or even $15, overnight. But it makes no economic sense to subsidize corporations that pay low wages, or pay their executives hundreds of times the wages of their lowest paid workers. No matter how much they bitch about corporate and personal income taxes, the fact is that the US has some of the lowest tax rates in the developed world. All those "welfare" programs don't subsidize the poor. They subsidize the employers who pay too little.

[LWolf]

34. What "war on poverty???"

The U.S. went to war on that war under Ronald Reagan, and has been highly successful in containing, if not eradicating, the "war on poverty."

[hunter]

35. No. The money always bounces right back to the slumlords and other pukes.

It's a harsh reality that when you are poor any money you handle is never yours.

Fuck those pukes.

[daredtowork]

36. Made impoverished people more comfortable???!!! BULLSHIT!!!

BULLSHIT! Ever since Clinton's "Reform of Welfare as we Know It", welfare programs have been designed to be impossible to"get comfortable" in so that people will be "incentivized"to work. In other words they are designed to create an environment of stress and instability so the choices are work or imminent homelessness.

Take Oakland's General Assistance welfare, for instance. People with no savings or assets get a LOAN of $336/month for 3 months out of the year - with deductions if you do any casual labor and myriad errors that screw you up. This is an area where Rent Jungle is pegging new one bedroom apts. at $2700/month because of pressure from incoming tech gentrification.Many people fall back on welfare because they are unemployable, at least for the time being: they have health problems that take a long time to document, they have mental health problems, their cycle-of-poverty problems (re:transportation) undermine employment. Their problem in the first place is STABILITY. Clinton's Welfare Reform MADE THE PROBLEM WORSE!!!!

So where did the 22 Trillion go? IT WAS WASTED BY CLINTON!!! This money fueled a vast poverty bureaucracy where the system doen't actually help people stabilize their lives. It just tortures people and herds already debilitated people toward homelessness. Moreover this bureaucracy is rife with corruption as doctors get paid for evaluations, investigators get paid to focus their investigations, and contractors get paid for special reports and system upgrades. ALMOST NONE OF THIS MONEY IS GOING TO THE POOR!!!

And don't think all the politicians in Washington didn't design it this way. They are issuing payola to all their cronies while creating a ginormous "boondoggle" as an excuse to cut welfare programs. All the while they use "welfare queens" as the scapegoat for all their financial problems. The gall is astounding! But you only understand this as an Atrocity if you've seen welfare from the inside.

Again, CLINTON WASTED THE $22 TRILLION. That is neither the fault of the poor or an excuse not to wage war on poverty. It just means that Clinton (purposely?) sabotaged that war. Let me know when everyone is ready to start waging a REAL war on poverty!

[SalviaBlue]

39. I would NEVER trust any research by Heritage.

Do you not know who they are? Why is this "research" featured on DU?