Author Topic: Why are the poor, poor?  (Read 122713 times)

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,165
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2008, 09:15:30 am »
The Federal gov needs to get out of the poverty pimping programs and turn everything over to the states, local gov, and private charities.

Some time I wish you would take the time to explain why you have such faith that the states would, in fact, take over the burden if the federal government got out of the picture. This, in a nutshell, is the problem I have with your "federalism" approach. State governments--state legislatures--are even more responsive to their constitutents than Congress. Any Pennsylvania state representative from, say, Mifflin or Juniata County, in the center of the state, who advocated raising taxes across the state--and don't kid yourself or try to kid anyone else, you take the federal government out of the picture, state taxes would have to go up to fill in the gap--for poverty programs in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh or Allentown or Reading would be voted out of office so fast his head would spin right around like Linda Blair's in The Exorcist.

I apologize if I'm offensive, but I think what appears to me to be your faith in the states--and the people in them--is unfounded at best and naive at worst. But, for what it's worth, I do believe your convictions are genuine. I would not say that about all conservatives.

Quote
I advocate "federal" (as opposed to the Federal gov) solutions to the challenges facing the US. And one of those challenges is the intractable nature of an underclass that continuously perpetuates itself generation after generation. This underclass is a huge burden on the tax payers who have to pay for the welfare programs, and the commiserate crime that grows out of dysfunctional neighborhoods. The federal programs designed by LBJ and his consorts as a "War on Poverty" back in the 1960's have failed utterly to eliminate poverty.

Perhaps because, unlike the war in Iraq, we gave up too soon?

Quote
what are my specific reforms which I would advocate in my home state?

1) The states need to regulate procreation in all recipients of welfare aid. if a person can not afford to raise children, then they shouldn't be allowed to have them, by law.
Birth control pills then should be mandatory for welfare recipients to continue to receive aid. Male birth control pills should also be mandatory. additional pregnancies should be viewed then as a disqualifier for continued aid. Periodic mandatory pregnancy tests should be a part of the qualifying procedures for aid, with periodic followups.

Jesus H. Christ, you have got to be effen kiddin'. Who's your medical adviser, Josef Mengele? While you're at it, why don't you just round up the poor and load 'em onto cattle cars. I'm sure there's plenty of room in West Texas to set up the concentration camps.

Edit: Actually, it strikes me as a good idea to make birth control available at the point of receiving Welfare benefits, especially if done without charge to the recipient, but as for requiring it? By law? No way.

Quote
5) Shame should be reintroduced as a societal deterrent to unwed and unsupported pregnancies. (I would definitely include the men on the wall of shame as well) those who are a burden on society should feel its disapproval in order to function as an object lesson for those who have yet to enter underclass behavior.

Let's us set up a business to embroider scarlet letters. ...

« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 01:56:40 pm by Jeff Wrangler »
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline Artiste

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,998
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #71 on: May 02, 2008, 10:01:10 am »
Some persons are poor, because they are enslaved, period !

See my thread how China sells children on the auction block, yesterday and to-day, so these young kids have to be slaves litterally !!

Shame on China !


Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,165
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #72 on: May 02, 2008, 10:53:30 am »
I am a lifelong moderate Democrat, but find myself in agreement with broketrash on the above points, particularly those concerning education.  I am a former educator, from a family of educators, and view the US educational system as a flat out mess.  Broketrash's suggestions are in line with my own beliefs about how we might improve it.

Absolutely!
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #73 on: May 02, 2008, 11:08:04 am »
Good morning, broketrash, and thanks for such a thorough and carefully considered response!

The Federal gov needs to get out of the poverty pimping programs and turn everything over to the states, local gov, and private charities.

I've never understood why people think this would be a good idea. Why would states and local governments be any better at handling this than the federal government? As Jeff said, handing responsibility to the states would just create new, even thornier, state-level problems. Just about every state has its Juniata County vs. Philadelphia situation. Or worse, IMO, is the conflict between cities, suburbs and rural areas. Many suburbanites, I've noticed, have little empathy for urban or rural poor people. (And I say that as someone who grew up in a suburb, lives in one now, and still likes a lot of things about them.) To me, this just seems like a strategy for giving people who oppose poverty programs more power to dismantle them.

State administration would also create instability of various kinds as welfare recipients in states with limited programs flood across the borders of neighboring states with more generous programs.

As for private charities, they're already in the business of helping the poor, but they somehow don't seem to be fixing everything either. Would taxpayers, relieved of their responsibility to pay for federal Welfare, turn over the same amount of their income to charities? Um, yeah, a few might.

Quote
This underclass is a huge burden on the tax payers who have to pay for the welfare programs, and the commiserate crime that grows out of dysfunctional neighborhoods.

This is among the reasons I think we all have an interest in addressing poverty.

Quote
The federal programs designed by LBJ and his consorts as a "War on Poverty" back in the 1960's have failed utterly to eliminate poverty.

Right -- poverty has not been eliminated, just reduced. When the War on Poverty was intruduced in 1964, the U.S. poverty rate was 19 percent. Over the following decade, it dropped to 11 percent, and currently hovers around 12 percent.

From the Census Bureau:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

And many individual programs that were part of the War on Poverty, such as Head Start and VISTA, are widely considered successful.

Quote
There is no motivation to stay and be the fathers that they should be. And because welfare benefits are tied to the size of families, the women have no motivation to use readily available birth control and abortion.

Yes, I can agree that these aspects of the system can create problems.

Quote
The value of a "federal" union, is that some states will succeed, and others will fail, but all will learn and eventually emulate the winners if the Federal gov in DC would get its carcass out of the way.

How will "all" be equipped to "eventually emulate the winners"? I'm guessing state politics and economics would largely shape the structures and outcomes of these hypothetical state-level programs. And those two factors, among others, vary widely among states. Would a program that works in Maryland work equally well in Mississippi?

Quote
additional pregnancies should be viewed then as a disqualifier for continued aid.

So those newborns would be punished for their parents' actions by being left without help?

Wonder what would happen then. Remember the story of Hansel and Gretel, the children left to die in the woods? It's actually based on historical fact. Back in the days when another mouth to feed could seriously threaten a family's ability to survive -- i.e., throughout most of human history -- babies were often left to die, either directly, by being abandoned in the woods, or indirectly, by being left on the doorsteps of foundling homes and wet nurses who were dealing with their own poverty issues and often could not support them.

Quote
  I will be among the minority of conservatives who wish to keep abortion as a legal but restricted option.

Restricted in what way? It's only legal for poor people, or what?

Quote
at the high school levels, the system should break into two paths - one for academics, another for technical and trade schools.

Two problems with this that come to mind immediately: 1) I imagine lots and lots of kids would be mislabeled and put on the wrong track. Think of all the stories of great and famous people who were not high achievers in school. 2) Many technical and trade jobs are increasingly being automated or outsourced.

Quote
We are presently in all of the states wasting billions in federal and state aid to education encouraging nonacademically qualified students into attending college. This is a disservice to the tax payers and the child. 

So you're contending that the Welfare roles are filled with underqualified former college students?? Hunh?? I'd guess that most poor people did not attend college, and that going to college, whatever one's academic skills, is one of the surest ways OUT of poverty.

Quote
And, just as in the two track high school system, we need a two track system in higher education. Academia and Trade/Technical  schools. This is the model that has been used in Germany for generations with a great deal of success. If we can offer students a useful education that trains them in relevant job skills leading to an apprenticeship program and a guaranteed job at the end of their studies, we will have moved a long ways towards solving the problems of the perpetual underclass.

I don't know about the program in Germany, but times have changed over the generations. The job skills that led to success a generation ago, or even a decade ago, are not necessarily in the same demand today.

And the "guaranteed job"? That sounds suspiciously like it would involve more government intervention.

Quote
5) Shame should be reintroduced as a societal deterrent to unwed and unsupported pregnancies. (I would definitely include the men on the wall of shame as well) those who are a burden on society should feel its disapproval in order to function as an object lesson for those who have yet to enter underclass behavior.

I like this idea! And while we're at it, let's reintroduce shame as a social deterrent to mass murder, as well.

Quote
Those who receive welfare aid should also be required to offer community service such as cleaning up the parks.

Actually, I've never understood why anybody would object to this idea. Potentially, it seems, Welfare could be the equivalent of Roosevelt's WPA.

Quote
Those who make the transition from welfare to productive careers should be publicly honored for their achievement. Creating a positive role model.

This sounds nice!  :D




Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #74 on: May 02, 2008, 11:30:46 am »
Here's an interesting article from the American Psychological Association's website. It appears to date back to the late '90s, though I'm sure many of its points are still valid. For more on Welfare myths, google "welfare" and "myths." You'll find a lot of what are called myths are statements that have been bandied about on this thread.


Myths and Facts About Welfare

The general public views poverty as the result of personal failures and deficiencies. This perception rests on several myths. The most prevalent are that poverty results from a lack of responsibility; welfare leads to chronic dependency; African American women make up the largest group of welfare recipients; welfare promotes single parenthood and out-of-wedlock births; welfare provides a disincentive to work; welfare creates a "culture of poverty" because recipients share and hand down to their children a set of defective behaviors, values, and personality traits; and welfare funds extravagant spending by welfare recipients (Ehrenreich, 1987; Katz, 1989). These myths of pathology translate directly to the debate of who deserves help. They also fuel powerful stereotypical racial and gender messages. It is mothers, especially African American and single mothers, who are viewed as undeserving. Unwed mothers are thought to have the choice of marriage and do not obtain the sympathy that widows have. Other groups that are perceived as undeserving are immigrants, especially if they are not fluent in English.

Even the term "welfare" has been pejorative, and distortions of facts about welfare perpetuate myths about public assistance and those who receive it. These negative myths and stereotypes reinforced the government's agenda in cutting welfare spending to those recipients viewed as undeserving. Reform will continue to be ineffective if those implementing it do not separate myth from fact.

Strategies for alleviating poverty and decisions about government spending continue to be closely linked to the perceived causes of poverty, as well as the extent to which these causes are perceived to be modifiable (Furnham, 1982). Poverty is seen as an individual problem or a social issue (such as education or crime) rather than an economic issue (such as unemployment and the economy)(Gallup, 1992). Consequently, solutions are geared toward fixing or punishing those individuals with the "problem." Little attention is focused on societal factors that may perpetuate under- and unemployment, such as inadequate education, transportation, child care, and mental health problems.

Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility


Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages

Welfare programs have been our country's response to poverty, and everyone agrees that those programs have not solved the problem. Jared Bernstein (1996) of the Economic Policy Institute identifies wage decline as the crucial economic factor that has had the largest impact on poverty rates in the 1980s and 1990s. While hourly rates of pay have fallen for the majority of the workforce since the late 1970s, by far the largest losses have been for the lowest paid workers. According to Bernstein (1996), between 1979 and 1989, the male worker, for example, at the 10th percentile (meaning 90 percent of the male workforce earns more) saw his hourly wage decline 13 percent, and since 1989 he lost another 6 percent. For women workers at the 10th percentile, the decline over the 1980s was 18 percent. The low-wage female worker gained slightly since 1989, but by 1995, her hourly wage rate was $4.84, down from $5.82 in 1979 (all dollars are in 1995 inflation-adjusted terms).

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).

Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support


Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent

A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56 percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These exit rates clearly contradict the widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent. Unfortunately, return rates were also high, with 45 percent of ex-recipients returning to AFDC within 1 year. Persons who were likely to use AFDC longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were under age 24 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These risk factors illustrate the importance of structural barriers, such as inadequate child care, racism, and lack of education.

Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women

Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are White

Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are women (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1995). The majority of the recipients are White (38 percent), followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent other minority groups (Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans) (McLaughlin, 1997). However, African Americans are disproportionately represented on public assistance because they are only 12 percent of the population (O'Hare, Pollard, Mann, & Kent, 1991).

Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families

Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family

The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate, 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children. Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon, 1997).

Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance

Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line

The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as "Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996).

Despite the ready availability of facts, myths about welfare continue to be widespread. The media contributes to this lack of information. The media helps shape public perceptions about welfare recipients. The way in which a topic is reported can turn a neutral reader into an opinionated reader and can greatly influence public opinion. Although in an analysis of articles published in 10 major newspapers from January 1997 to April 1997, the tone was generally sympathetic to the poor, actual research and facts to counter myths were generally lacking (Wyche & Mattern, 1997).



Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,165
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #75 on: May 02, 2008, 11:36:39 am »
State administration would also create instability of various kinds as welfare recipients in states with limited programs flood across the borders of neighboring states with more generous programs.

There is a great potential for interstate conflict here. What's to prevent states with numbers of urban poor, say, in the Rustbucket Northeast, from buying those poor folks bus tickets to Texas and Florida just to get rid of the problem? Seems to me I remember reading accusations of that sort of thing happening already.

I suppose you would address this by creating some sort of residency requirement for assistance, so then we would just have numbers of poor people getting kicked out of one state with nowhere to go.

Reminds one of the old English Poor Law, where the poor could be forcibly chased from parish to parish until they returned to the parish where they were born, which was held to be responsible for supporting them.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline Artiste

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,998
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #76 on: May 02, 2008, 02:48:01 pm »
Merci seriouscrayons !

Very interesting are the facts and myths about welfare !!

Thanks !!

Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #77 on: May 02, 2008, 03:33:33 pm »
Lotta trouble with that article.

I'd like to see these "various govt reports' referenced.

My favorites are the 'owns TV, air conditioners and cars'.  Yeah.  How do they define an "air conditioner"?  I've grown up around things they could call an air conditioner.  A small metal box that if you poured water into it and turned it on, you'd get cool air cranked out - but only if you stood in front of it and only for about 15 minutes, then you had to pour more water into it.  Is a 'fan' called air conditioning?  They don't say these people have central air.  The poor people across the street from my mother "owned" about 4 cars...only 1 worked.  They traded batteries around every morning trying to find one that would help start the one car that might work.  And it goes without saying that they didn't have the money to run their one car legally - no insurance, no tags, inspection etc.

And this Yet, although work and marriage are reliable lad­ders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both.

You do know that marriage has a failure rate of about 50%?  So what if a poor person marries?  There is a good chance they'll be divorced soon and right back where they started.  So much for that "reliable ladder".   

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/upload/bg_2064.pdf

Earlier, I had posted only the executive summary. Here is the original article as a 19 page PDF file with dozens of charts and direct referential links to the reports in which you have an interest.. So, knock yourself out!  :-*

this is article is by the same scholar whose study of the economic and social impact of illegal immigration stopped the rush to pass the Kennedy McCain amnesty bill in its tracks last year. this guy ain't no light weight crack pot. his work is taken very seriously in think tanks across the US.  :)

 with dozens of charts and direct referential links to the reports in which you indicated  an interest. 

Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #78 on: May 02, 2008, 03:41:18 pm »

(and you have to consider the source...the Heritage Foundation is a front for the Moral Majority refugees. They consider REAGAN to be the Messiah "the greatest most successful President since Lincoln"  ::) ::) ::) )



That comment is sadly lacking in an understanding of the Heritage Foundation and indicative of the lack of serious scholarship on this issue under discussion. I won't further engage in a discussion that shows a lack of the basic knowledge of the problem in question, and relies on anecdotal commentary and emotional appeal. Why should I waste my time with that level of discussion of a very serious problem that will in fact be resolved in the political process one way of the other over the next decade?

http://www.heritage.org/

Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #79 on: May 02, 2008, 03:54:02 pm »
Some time I wish you would take the time to explain why you have such faith that the states would, in fact, take over the burden if the federal government got out of the picture. This, in a nutshell, is the problem I have with your "federalism" approach. State governments--state legislatures--are even more responsive to their constitutents than Congress. Any Pennsylvania state representative from, say, Mifflin or Juniata County, in the center of the state, who advocated raising taxes across the state--and don't kid yourself or try to kid anyone else, you take the federal government out of the picture, state taxes would have to go up to fill in the gap--for poverty programs in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh or Allentown or Reading would be voted out of office so fast his head would spin right around like Linda Blair's in The Exorcist.

I apologize if I'm offensive, but I think what appears to me to be your faith in the states--and the people in them--is unfounded at best and naive at worst. But, for what it's worth, I do believe your convictions are genuine. I would not say that about all conservatives.


I am not the least bit offended. You are attempting to enjoin me in a serious conversation about federalism, a continuation of a conversation which we have intermittently engaged in since I first started logging on to Bettermost some 11 months ago.

As far as the questions as to whether the states will assume the entire burden that the Federal gov assumes at this time. That will depend upon the state. After a vigorous debate within the state in question over the state's role in welfare, states will try many different solutions. How do you know that a reduced plan of spending on welfare needs is not the best solution? How do I know that an increased plan of spending on welfare needs is not the best solution? Neither of us know this.

What I do know, is that the best arena for this debate is at the state and local level. The programs which spend the taxes coming out of the state and the localities which fund those welfare programs need to be debated by the citizens, the local officials and the state officials. I am confident that if the people thru referenda, constitutional amendment, or just plain ordinary elections vote for those welfare plans or those who advocate an increase in spending, then those enhanced programs will become reality. The converse is also true. This is the essence of democracy, and this is what is lacking in the present welfare system, there is no accountability to the tax payer and the voter.

The magic of the federal system is that states are individual laboratories and given time and experimentation, we shall learn what works best for the tax payers money. But, we will never learn this until the Federal gov gets out of the way.