Helping The Poor
Posted October 20th, 2007 by Da King
In the political wars, Democrats like to paint Republicans as white male chauvinist christian bigots who are in the pocket of rich people and don't give a single crap about the poor. Democrats paint themselves as the compassionate good people who are fighting for the rights of the little guy against those same evil Republicans. On this battlefront, the Democrats are winning (though not as much as they were when they controlled ALL the media), because that perception is pretty widely accepted. But who really helps the poor the most ? Painting with the broad brush, and granting that there are many exceptions, the solutions of the two parties to poverty are these: Republicans believe economic growth leads to expanded opportunity, for the poor along with everyone else. It's the principle of the rising tide that lifts all boats. The Democrats believe in more government intervention in the form of government programs to assist people out of poverty. I'd say both sides believe education is key to lowering poverty.
In 1965, president Lyndon Johnson launched the War On Poverty. 17.3% of americans lived below the poverty line in 1965, according to the poverty tables of the US Census. In 2006, 12.3% lived below the poverty line. So, poverty dropped by 5% over 41 years. It's good poverty dropped even a little, but I'm not sure whether I should laugh or cry, because a 5% drop doesn't sound like a real victory in the War On Poverty to me. That sounds like it's gone about as well as the War In Iraq the last few years, only marginal improvement. Plus, since we have more people now than we did in 1965, we actually have MORE people living in poverty. In 1965, there were 19,141,300. In 2006, there were 29,645,000. That's over ten million more people living in poverty than when the War On Poverty started. I'm also thinking that the estimated 12 million illegals aren't all showing up in the Census data either, which would drive the poverty number higher yet.
The question to ask is: Did all those Great Society social programs have any effect on poverty, or was it the opportunity in the Land Of Opportunity that caused the percentage drop ? Of note is the fact that the numbers of americans in poverty was dropping sharply before the big government Democrats began their 1965 round of big government programs. According to the same Census poverty tables, in 1959, 22.4% lived below the poverty line, so in the six years BEFORE LBJ's Great Society program began, the poverty rate dropped by 7.1%, more than it has in the four plus decades since. To me, those numbers say that it was the opportunity from economic growth that decreased poverty the most, not any big government anti-poverty programs. I would explicitly exempt educational and job training programs from that judgement, because those ARE valuable. Education IS the key.
We all know what was accomplished by those other types of government programs that were supposed to help the poor by subsidizing them with our tax dollars. The welfare state was created, which not only didn't help people out of poverty, it kept them mired in it for generation after generation. We gave the poor food stamps, virtually free housing, assistance with utility bills, a monthly stipend. We increased the stipend for each child the poor had. In short, we removed individual responsibility, promoted irresponsibility, destroyed the work ethic of many, and it wreaked havoc. The family unit disintegrated, out of wedlock births soared, crime became rampant, drug use skyrocketed. Those 'compassionate' Democrats had created an unmitigated disaster. The Democratic response to the nightmare they had unleashed on the poor communities ? Why, MORE government programs, of course. Some people never learn.
Finally, in 1996, something positive happened. Bill Clinton, after twice vetoing welfare reform packages from his Republican congress, reached a compromise agreement with them and signed welfare reform into law. It was Clinton's greatest achievement, and to accomplish it, all he had to do was agree with what Republicans were saying all along. Liberals widely denounced Clinton at the time for being a sell-out, because, well, they're liberals, they're wrong about almost everything. Immediately, the poverty rate began to drop, particularly among black people. In 1995, the poverty rate among blacks was 29.3%. By 2001, it was 22.4%. In 2006 it still stood at 24.3%, and that was after a recession, 9/11, Katrina, and war. Now that the success of welfare reform has been so obviously displayed, liberals like to pretend they were in favor of it from the start, because in addition to being nearly always wrong, they are also shameless liars. Liberals also never mention that it was the Republican congress that initiated welfare reform. They like to pretend it was all Clinton's doing, since he's a Democrat. Like I said, liars. Shameless. They never met any history they couldn't try to reinvent.
In the end, what is best for the poor is also what is best for the rest of the country. A strong economy, a good educational system, low taxes. That leads to opportunity, and opportunity is what lifts people out of poverty. The endless attempts of the left to foment class warfare and division among us in order to consolidate their political power and push socialism is counterproductive. Everyone believes in a safety net for the poor and unfortunate, but that safety net shouldn't become a way of life, it should be a transitional period. We should always take care of the disabled and the elderly. I don't think anybody disagrees with that either. But if the big government cradle-to-grave nanny state policies were going to cure poverty, it would have already happened. They aren't going to, so let's try to minimize them as much as we can, leave people's money in their own pockets rather than the government's pockets, and go about the business of creating good jobs and prosperity. That will be more effective than any of Hillary's million hare-brained wealth redistribution schemes.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:04 am
"Republicans believe economic growth leads to expanded opportunity, for the poor along with everyone else."
People in hell believe someone is bringing them ice water too.
What you say may be true in this regard: Republicans may indeed "believe" what you say….but clue me in on how the last number of years of economic growth has led to more people in poverty and more hollowing out of the middle class. How in the hell did all that happen? Did the little people's boats have holes in them?
You believe in some ideology that is simply fictitious.
Has the economy grown since 1973? Has it? Hell yes it has. Why then, haven't workers received any raises in the last 34 years?
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:45 am
I received a raise in 1984.
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 am
"Has the economy grown since 1973? Has it? Hell yes it has. Why then, haven't workers received any raises in the last 34 years?"
Hmmm. Back into the twilight zone. How do I respond to a fictitious question ?
I don't. On what planet is it that workers haven't received any raises since 1973 ? I've received tons of them personally. So has everyone else I know, except those that don't work. Plus, Democrats have run congress for 22 of those 34 years since 1973, so why is your perception of blame only directed at conservatives ?
Rev, underlying all your rhetoric seems to be the backasswards view that it is the government, through heavy taxation and redistribution, that creates prosperity, rather than the private sector doing it through job and wealth creation, via free enterprise. I've never heard a more wrong idea in my entire life. I think you literally have to be insane to believe it, or at least brainwashed beyond the capacity for rational thought.
If you want my ideology, here it is: The object of our society should not be to fill the government coffers to give government bureaucrats more and more power over our lives, a responsibility which they have proven time and time again they can't manage. This is america, purportedly the land of the free. The object of our society should be the welfare of our citizens. Having half of our citizens dependent on a meager government subsistence for survival, while the other half give half their wages to that same government to support it is inane. It is a tribute to the wondrous powers of our semi-free market economy that we've been able to hold out with such a system even this long, but it cannot stand. $9 trillion in debt says it can't. The government is inept. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have been doing it right, but the Democrats are dead wrong philosophically, especially with the hard left turn they have taken from the 60's forward. The Republicans mouth some of the correct philosophy, but they often don't do what they say they will do, for a number of reasons that are too long for me to go into now. What I think we should do, you would categorize as nuts. We should dramatically lower taxes, cut the size of the federal government by at least half, stop taxing business net income, and institute only a windfall profits penalty tax that would induce business to hire more workers, pay better wages, and/or reduce the prices of products. It is a legitimate role of government to regulate business, and they should in regards to ensuring that business doesn't trample over citizens for self-enrichment, but that regulation shouldn't be for the purpose of transferring power to the government instead, as it is now. It should be for the betterment of the citizens.
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:46 pm
King, the last 5 sentences of your reply are much more sensible than those that come from Democrats since you are trying to use government for the betterment of society and Dems want to use it for the betterment of the Dem party.
Hey, fellows, I have had annual raises in Social Security payments for over 12 years. They raise us enough for us to pay the raised payments on Medicare that we pay. By the time you figure in that one payment and inflation we old people surely aren't gaining much annually and supposedly that is what the raise if supposed to do for us.
I have two sons who get annual or semi-annual raises in wages but don't seem to gain much from them. They work for a family owned business that is expanding every day, and that keeps the employers strapped when they try to keep their employees satisfied and keep expanding at the same time. I am not sure how they manage to keep on getting bigger all the time with all the government regulation they have to contend with. The corporation has gone from ownership of two large local farm equipment locations to ownership of 6 of these things in 3 years. They are managing to keep loyalty among their original employees but some of the new ones don't even wait around to see how things go, but just quit and go on. They keep their original employees around because they pay over $300 of the monthly cost of health insurance and have a great 401k arrangement with them. All of their employees find themselves advancing in the real world of economic capability if they really sit back and look at what is happening.
I don't get to see much that you people from urbanized areas do as far as poverty is concerned because our poverty isn't as bad as it could be since it costs less to live and jobs are easier to come by here, but I do think that less government would be the best answer to the problem of elevating people economically.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:56 am
When I look at the money I made in 1973, 1983, or even 1993 compared to now, now is much better, at least from an hourly wage standpoint. Of course, since the company I'm contracting for is losing tons of money over the housing problem, I expect my contract will be terminated somewhere between today and the end of the year, and they are also moving jobs offshore (to India). Maybe I should whine and cry like the Rev does, because the CEO of that company still has a job (and he's rich !), but you won't be hearing me do that. If we want to keep jobs and keep them here, the answer is along those last five lines I wrote previously, far more than any of the socialist extra weight the liberals want business to carry around. It can't work. The Rev hates that word 'globalism', but it's here to stay, so we have to deal with it.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
What you are saying sounds appealing. My only problem is that there is an intersection between poverty and other forms of oppression in America that can't be addressed through trickle-down type economic solutions. In other words, there are certain people who wouldn't be poor if they could find a way not to be disenfranchised by American society through social oppression.
And let's face it, the Democrats historically have proven themselves to be the safe haven for the oppressed and budge on certain social issues more generously than the Republicans. So in that way, they are more progressive, and what might be characterized as excessive government spending (the typical gripe against Democrats) can be overlooked.
I don't want a fish, I want to be taught how to fish. I don't want for anyone to tell me I don't deserve to be taught how to fish. Republicans tend to do that with people of whom they don't approve.
September 21st, 2008 at 6:47 am
Other than illegals, I can't think of anyone of whom Republicans don't approve. Is there anyone in this country who doesn't have access to education ? Nope. Is there anyone in this country who doesn't have access to a career ? Nope.