Poverty level breaks 50-year record

The war on poverty started in the 1960's.

They've spent more than $20 Trillion since then and guess what....

It's a little worse now.

Poverty has had it's ups and downs, but the cake is baked now.

I think most of the social programs that involve a lot of money are for the administrators and political thinkers that get paid big salaries and fees.

That’s rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record

Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama.

Aides said Mr. Obama doesn’t plan to commemorate the anniversary Wednesday of Johnson’s speech in 1964, which gave rise to Medicaid, Head Start and a broad range of other federal anti-poverty programs. The president’s only public event Tuesday was a plea for Congress to approve extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, another reminder of the persistent economic troubles during Mr. Obama’s five years in office.

“What I think the American people are really looking for in 2014 is just a little bit of stability,” Mr. Obama said.

Must Read

We have a 50 year old problem, so what's the solution?

Thinking....

Thinking....

Well wait.

Here's Obama's latest solution....

Summoning his inner community organizer, President Obama said Thursday he intends to “mobilize the country” this year around a national mission of giving poor Americans a shot at economic success.

“This is going to be a year of action,” Mr. Obama said at the White House. “This is not just a job for government. This is a job for everybody.”

Thesis anti-Thesis ?

reply to post by xuenchen

The solution is hilariously simple. If the way you're doing it is not working ... Stop doing it that way.

50 years of failure? That's not how TPTB would define it. They're $20T richer.

ETA: I should have proposed a solution. I will later in the thread. Meanwhile S&F for posting a great topic.

reply to post by xuenchen


I have no idea how to solve poverty. What I do know is under Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress we have: poverty up, racial tensions up, class tensions up, police brutality up... SPEAK WITH YOUR VOTE.

xuenchen
Well wait.

Here's Obama's latest solution....

President Obama said Thursday he intends to “mobilize the country” this year around a national mission of giving poor Americans a shot

Or more like it, reads mobilize the Military, Shoot the poor . Problem solved. So he Thinks.

reply to post by xuenchen


Jesus christ....

20 trillion?

I could seed a new civilization for 20 trillion, maybe 2.

We could have 3 or more underground cities on mars for that much money.


End poverty? How about you REALLY educate and empower your citizens. That way you arent ruling over an army of idiots but rather are the leader of strong free men and women who do amazing things....The pond will get bigger sure but hey our leaders are such great big fish right? Why would they want a small pond....?

Snarl
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The solution is hilariously simple. If the way you're doing it is not working ... Stop doing it that way.

50 years of failure? That's not how TPTB would define it. They're $20T richer.

ETA: I should have proposed a solution. I will later in the thread. Meanwhile S&F for posting a great topic.

edit on 912014 by Snarl because: ETA

I have an idea TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS! Make everyone a real "shareholder" in the country and pay them dividends. That way, they can buy whatever they need and stimulate the economy rather than have it sucked dry which is happening now.

Cheers - Dave

WRONG! BZZZT!


So, as we can see, poverty levels sharply decline whenever a Dem is in office, and spike back up when a Rep is in office.

Now, granted, if we simply stopped electing Reps to office and following destructive conservative policys, we would have already elmininated poverty by now, but for some reason, I think we Americans like to challenge ourselves, so shoot ourselves in the foot.

Enjoy your propaganda, the rest of us will stick with facts.

There are two things to note here. First, there was a huge fall in the poverty rate throughout the 1960s, and in particular after LBJ announced the War on Poverty in 1964 and followed up with Medicaid, Medicare, greater federal housing spending, and other programs to fight that war. In 1964, the poverty rate was 19 percent. Ten years later, it was 11.2 percent, and it has not gone above 15.2 percent any year since then. Contrary to what you may have heard, the best evidence indicates that the War on Poverty made a real and lasting difference.

Source
(hint: your either misinformed, or lying..which is it and why?)

The only possible way to cure poverty is for every single person to earn exactly the same money.

Or, better still, have just one person earn £1 more - meaning everyone is in poverty except him

The definition of poverty these days (earning below the median income) is a insult to those in genuine poverty.....

Why is poverty the failure of the government?

ManFromEurope
Why is poverty the failure of the government?

Why? Because unlike the poor, they steal everything that does not belong to them.

YAY Obama, now please give us our infrastructure and out-sourced jobs which you spoke about. We WILL thank you!

Ohh they changed the smiley's!

Cant help but believe its hard to win a war on poverty when your working against an ever changing job market. Look at how things have changed in the past 50 years, we live in an economic system that deem's you worthless unless you actually have some sort of skill or a written piece of paper proclaiming that you are educated.

Quite frankly, we live in a system that encourages poor pay and by default leads to poverty.

13th Zodiac

ManFromEurope
Why is poverty the failure of the government?

Why? Because unlike the poor, they steal everything that does not belong to them.

Huh? Poverty of a person is the failure of the government because the government steals everything?
Could you please explain your idea?

SaturnFX


Enjoy your propaganda, the rest of us will stick with facts.

The Repubs would never believe this graphic, after all their the party of fiscal responsibility and business...not.


As long as you have vulture capitalists feeding off the outsourcing of a decent American jobs, i don't see no change.

"The best customer of American industry is the well-paid worker."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

reply to post by SaturnFX


So, lets look at this shall we?

The fall of poverty immediately after the policies were instituted are kind of a DUH moment. Anytime a group are given free stuff for the first time, the measured source will show an increase of worth and/or drop in poverty. They just got a huge handout from the Govt, so why wouldn't the numbers show a fall in poverty.
Now, in relation to where the rate started, to where it is today, is an abysmal result of a program/plan by any measurement, except when viewing the loved Govt programs.
The program is a failure as it was created, the "War on Poverty", to eradicate poverty. Yet, with trillions spent on useless crap and free stuff for people, all at the expense of the tax payer or someone else other then those in poverty.
And to state it is all the fault of Republicans is about the biggest laughable statement I have read today. Most of the Govt today is run with the Progressive mindset or more Govt control, regardless what side of the aisle it in charge.

Only within the world of good intentions of Govt, could this program be viewed as anything but a huge and utter failure. The number of people in poverty has not decreased to any level that is deemed a success. The amount of money dumped into this, while measuring "decrease" of people in poverty is about the saddest thing in the report.

The amount of money has spun out of control from start date to now.
Looking at the graphs provided within the article, the last measured number is from 2010, which showed the rate rising in numbers in poverty.

Plus, the article you provided, pulls its info from a book.

And with the Dems basically in control over the last 6 years or so, has shown no reduction in poverty levels, unemployment is at a high, personal wealth is dropping and the economy stinks.

So....I know how you love you some Govt programs at the tax payer expense, it doesn't show to anything except further control of people, remove money from some and give to others and keep poor people poor.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Looking at Presidents it seems that some Republicans actually got results unlike what you are saying.

Nixon and Ford netted a lower number.

Carter had a spike up towards the end of his office.

Reagan started a good downtrend in 1983.

Bush1 spiked up, Clinton spiked down but started an upward trend at his end.

Bush2 showed a slight downtrend but ended with a very high up trend.

Obama is at 15% levels and holding.

Perhaps the makeup of Congress has more impact?

A more accurate graph is in this pdf on page 10 (the poverty rate is in dark green)

Yes, the cake has been baked for many years. Obama promised a new recipe. That HAS NOT happened.

second

How can the war on poverty be won when we keep letting in those poverty stricken from other countries so that big business can have cheap labor?

reply to post by xuenchen


War on Poverty?

Looks like poverty won.