After waging War on Poverty for 50 years, let's not surrender

[LeafByNiggle]

The vast majority of babies *are *due to a choice: the choice to have sex with someone. Babies are not “thrust upon” those who *chose *to have sex, they’re a natural and well-known consequence of that decision.

That may be true. But there are other ways to become a single mother, such as having your husband die, or abandon you, even if you are married. And the other circumstance, not working a job, is very often not a choice that people make, but it is thrust upon them. I certainly don’t say that is true of all the poor, but it is true of enough of them that we should not dismiss their plight by saying it was just their own choice.

 

[ishii]

That may be true. But there are other ways to become a single mother, such as having your husband die, or abandon you, even if you are married. And the other circumstance, not working a job, is very often not a choice that people make, but it is thrust upon them. I certainly don’t say that is true of all the poor, but it is true of enough of them that we should not dismiss their plight by saying it was just their own choice.

We should come up with ways to lift people up out of poverty whatever their circumstances. Whether the poverty is a result of bad choices or is a result of bad luck, we should be looking to help everyone. That said, there should be no hesitation to call out the behavior, which, if engaged in, will likely lead to poverty. Furthermore, we should not pursue the policies which create more poor people - as the War on Poverty programs clearly did.

Ishii

 

[St_Francis]

That may be true. But there are other ways to become a single mother, such as having your husband die, or abandon you, even if you are married.

Yes, but now the vast majority of single mothers are never-married–almost half the births in the US are to never-married women, and women initiate 2/3 of divorce proceedings.

And the other circumstance, not working a job, is very often not a choice that people make, but it is thrust upon them. I certainly don’t say that is true of all the poor, but it is true of enough of them that we should not dismiss their plight by saying it was just their own choice.

True, many are out of work due to a bad economy. However, having a baby without being married and without having a job and before you graduate high school is the strongest predictor of poverty.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

True, many are out of work due to a bad economy. However, having a baby without being married and without having a job and before you graduate high school is the strongest predictor of poverty.

Let’s not conflate “predictor” with “cause”. Some of the same circumstances that correlate with poverty also correlate with not graduating from high school for entirely independent reasons.

 

[St_Francis]

Let’s not conflate “predictor” with “cause”. Some of the same circumstances that correlate with poverty also correlate with not graduating from high school for entirely independent reasons.

How so?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How so?

How do some of the same circumstances that correlate with poverty also correlate with not graduating from high school for entirely independent reasons? I suppose the biggest common predictor of poverty as an adult is poverty as a child. If your parents were poor (even if you were lucky enough to have two parents at home) you are less likely to get the kind of encouragement that leads to graduation. You are less likely to be going to a school with great teachers. You are less likely to defer making money until after graduation. You are more likely to have examples of drug pushers around you making lots of money, tempting you to a life of crime, instead of staying in school. You are less likely to have broadband internet for doing research for school. Of course these are only probabilities, and we all know of inspirational exceptions - of people who have risen from bad circumstances to do great things. But they are the exceptions.

I guess I did not phrase my statement very well. These are not exactly independent reasons. They are reasons why the cause and effect between poverty and high school graduation might go in the opposite direction as was first implied. In addition to thinking about how not graduating from high school causes poverty, we should also think about how poverty causes not graduating from high school. In which case the simplistic view of post #17, implying that the cause and effect is all in one direction, is misleading. And that is what brought me into this thread.

 

[St_Francis]

How do some of the same circumstances that correlate with poverty also correlate with not graduating from high school for entirely independent reasons? I suppose the biggest common predictor of poverty as an adult is poverty as a child. If your parents were poor (even if you were lucky enough to have two parents at home) you are less likely to get the kind of encouragement that leads to graduation. You are less likely to be going to a school with great teachers. You are less likely to defer making money until after graduation. You are more likely to have examples of drug pushers around you making lots of money, tempting you to a life of crime, instead of staying in school. You are less likely to have broadband internet for doing research for school. Of course these are only probabilities, and we all know of inspirational exceptions - of people who have risen from bad circumstances to do great things. But they are the exceptions.

I guess I did not phrase my statement very well. These are not exactly independent reasons. They are reasons why the cause and effect between poverty and high school graduation might go in the opposite direction as was first implied. In addition to thinking about how not graduating from high school causes poverty, we should also think about how poverty causes not graduating from high school. In which case the simplistic view of post #17, implying that the cause and effect is all in one direction, is misleading. And that is what brought me into this thread.

Thank you for clarifying your comment.

I think you make a very good point. What do you think are some ways of changing this set-up?

Maybe we need to make a different thread about this…

 

[nmgauss]

Poverty is caused by people making poor choices. Having children when they are not affordable is the number one reason. Or having children when there is no father around is another. It makes no sense to ignore birth control when you cannot afford more children.

One factor is the influence of aggressive advertising saturating peoples attention. Once you’ve seen enough ads about McDonald’s, Carl’s Jr., Chuck-E-Cheese, you begin to opt for buying these products, even though they may not be wise choices. It is smart to buy heavily advertised products such as shoes, clothing, and cars, and then boast to your friends about your new possessions. Ostentation provides status. Frugality is not valued.

Often poor choices are subsidized by the government. You lose your job and the government sends you unemployment money, so why exert yourself looking for another job? You get diabetes from gluttony, and the government pays for doctor visits, so why lose weight? You become a drug addict and the government pays for your habit. You get multiple women pregnant without marrying them and there is no penalty. One-night stands and hookups are smart. Who cares of the consequences? There is now an effort to purposely reduce family income to qualify for subsidized Obama Care.

There is a reason for continued poverty. My parents were dirt poor when I was born. Through wise choices they managed to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and entered the lower middle class by the time I was in middle school. In those days there were no food stamps and no unemployment. We did not starve, and my family managed to thrive.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Poverty is caused by people making poor choices. Having children when they are not affordable is the number one reason. Or having children when there is no father around is another. It makes no sense to ignore birth control when you cannot afford more children.

One factor is the influence of aggressive advertising saturating peoples attention. Once you’ve seen enough ads about McDonald’s, Carl’s Jr., Chuck-E-Cheese, you begin to opt for buying these products, even though they may not be wise choices. It is smart to buy heavily advertised products such as shoes, clothing, and cars, and then boast to your friends about your new possessions. Ostentation provides status. Frugality is not valued.

Often poor choices are subsidized by the government. You lose your job and the government sends you unemployment money, so why exert yourself looking for another job? You get diabetes from gluttony, and the government pays for doctor visits, so why lose weight? You become a drug addict and the government pays for your habit. You get multiple women pregnant without marrying them and there is no penalty. One-night stands and hookups are smart. Who cares of the consequences? There is now an effort to purposely reduce family income to qualify for subsidized Obama Care.

There is a reason for continued poverty. My parents were dirt poor when I was born. Through wise choices they managed to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and entered the lower middle class by the time I was in middle school. In those days there were no food stamps and no unemployment. We did not starve, and my family managed to thrive.

When God has blessed us with His graces, it is important not to assume that we deserve it.

 

[St_Francis]

Poverty is caused by people making poor choices.

Poverty is not *solely *caused by people’s making poor choices. Many in the US are now “poor” because of the economy, not due to their own choices.

Having children when they are not affordable is the number one reason. Or having children when there is no father around is another. It makes no sense to ignore birth control when you cannot afford more children.

Having children is not the problem either–having children *before one is married *is. But the source of the problem is not even having children before marriage but having sex before marriage.

Since the advent of “reliable” birth control, the rate of babies born to unmarried women has risen over 10-fold.

One factor is the influence of aggressive advertising saturating peoples attention. Once you’ve seen enough ads about McDonald’s, Carl’s Jr., Chuck-E-Cheese, you begin to opt for buying these products, even though they may not be wise choices. It is smart to buy heavily advertised products such as shoes, clothing, and cars, and then boast to your friends about your new possessions. Ostentation provides status. Frugality is not valued.

Often poor choices are subsidized by the government. You lose your job and the government sends you unemployment money, so why exert yourself looking for another job? You get diabetes from gluttony, and the government pays for doctor visits, so why lose weight? You become a drug addict and the government pays for your habit. You get multiple women pregnant without marrying them and there is no penalty. One-night stands and hookups are smart. Who cares of the consequences? There is now an effort to purposely reduce family income to qualify for subsidized Obama Care.

Yes, it is true that there are percerse incentives in our system. But there are also perverse results of trying to rise out of poverty. If a man gets a raise at his job or gets a second job to try to life his family out of poverty, up until now (don’t know how the ACA affects this), he could lose the government-paid-for health insurance he needs for a child with a major health problem.

There is a reason for continued poverty. My parents were dirt poor when I was born. Through wise choices they managed to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and entered the lower middle class by the time I was in middle school. In those days there were no food stamps and no unemployment. We did not starve, and my family managed to thrive.

Back when there was little to no safety net, there were also many more jobs for which one did not need even a high-school diploma. People could make a decent wage by working hard physically. This has changed with automation and outsourcing.

Also, there are now many “barriers to entry” in terms of starting a small business or even working for oneself. I know a man in another country who lost his job and supported himself by baking bread and selling it in the street. Here, in most states he would have needed a commercial kitchen, permits to sell on the street (if it were allowed), and chemical analysis of the bread.

 

[Catholic_775]

** A Catholic totally destroys the protestant arguments in this recent Youtube debate. Here is the link…

youtube.com/watch?v=Qn1vC1Ez-OI **

 

[nmgauss]

Poverty is not *solely *caused by people’s making poor choices. Many in the US are now “poor” because of the economy, not due to their own choices.

How one survives after losing a job is a significant factor. If you stay at home and draw unemployment, you have not reached the point of being destitute. When my father lost his jobs, we, as a family, would often work in the fields just to put food on the table. He would hunt jack rabbits. He would glean farm fields for produce missed by the pickers. He would fish in the local ditches and bring home catfish to eat. Just sitting at home and feeling sorry for yourself does not accomplish anything.

Having children is not the problem either–having children *before one is married *is. But the source of the problem is not even having children before marriage but having sex before marriage.

My father had two children until he could afford a third. His brother had three children, and another brother had only two children. On my mother’s side, four siblings had only three children in their families. Another had only two children. Her older prosperous siblings had larger families (4 & 5), but were able to support all of them. And all remained married to their original spouse and raised their children with both a mother and a father. Nobody had children before marriage and nobody deserted their families. And everybody managed to avoid being destitute living on handouts from charity or the government.

How many people below the poverty line are really so poor that they are starving? Some complain that they cannot pay their cable TV or cell phone, or buy their kids Xboxes. It is not poverty if you can still feed your family and put a roof over their heads.

Since the advent of “reliable” birth control, the rate of babies born to unmarried women has risen over 10-fold.

Source? Also having babies that one cannot raise without assistance is a burden on all the rest of us. When I was a kid, having a baby out-of-wedlock was considered terrible. Today, we shrug our shoulders because we know that the mothers can always apply for food stamps.

Yes, it is true that there are percerse incentives in our system. But there are also perverse results of trying to rise out of poverty. If a man gets a raise at his job or gets a second job to try to lift his family out of poverty, up until now (don’t know how the ACA affects this), he could lose the government-paid-for health insurance he needs for a child with a major health problem.

So he pretends to be poor so he can leech off the taxpayers. The burden of having a child is now shifted onto the taxpayers. Who needs to be responsible for unplanned children when the government will come to the rescue?

Back when there was little to no safety net, there were also many more jobs for which one did not need even a high-school diploma. People could make a decent wage by working hard physically. This has changed with automation and outsourcing.

Also, there are now many “barriers to entry” in terms of starting a small business or even working for oneself. I know a man in another country who lost his job and supported himself by baking bread and selling it in the street. Here, in most states he would have needed a commercial kitchen, permits to sell on the street (if it were allowed), and chemical analysis of the bread.

 

[St_Francis]

How one survives after losing a job is a significant factor. If you stay at home and draw unemployment, you have not reached the point of being destitute. When my father lost his jobs, we, as a family, would often work in the fields just to put food on the table. He would hunt jack rabbits. He would glean farm fields for produce missed by the pickers. He would fish in the local ditches and bring home catfish to eat. Just sitting at home and feeling sorry for yourself does not accomplish anything.

My father had two children until he could afford a third. His brother had three children, and another brother had only two children. On my mother’s side, four siblings had only three children in their families. Another had only two children. Her older prosperous siblings had larger families (4 & 5), but were able to support all of them. And all remained married to their original spouse and raised their children with both a mother and a father. Nobody had children before marriage and nobody deserted their families. And everybody managed to avoid being destitute living on handouts from charity or the government.

It is wonderful that your family was able to do these things. It sounds like your family lived out in the country where they could do things like hunt rabbits, glean fields, and fish. Poor people in the cities can’t do those things.

How many people below the poverty line are really so poor that they are starving? Some complain that they cannot pay their cable TV or cell phone, or buy their kids Xboxes. It is not poverty if you can still feed your family and put a roof over their heads.

People below the poverty line get government help.

Source?

Link. Sorry, it is not quite 10-fold.

Also having babies that one cannot raise without assistance is a burden on all the rest of us. When I was a kid, having a baby out-of-wedlock was considered terrible. Today, we shrug our shoulders because we know that the mothers can always apply for food stamps.

We actually shrug because we think at least the mother didn’t have an abortion.

So he pretends to be poor so he can leech off the taxpayers. The burden of having a child is now shifted onto the taxpayers. Who needs to be responsible for unplanned children when the government will come to the rescue?

First, we do not know the child was unplanned; all we know is that the child is unhealthy enough to make having insurance a necessity.

Now, I am not a fan of the ACA, nor particularly of Medicaid, bit I do think that young families *ought to be *supported by the community. Maybe if the incentives were not towards having babies without already having husbands the illegitimacy rate would kot be so high. And maybe if it were easier to rise out of poverty, *as it once was, *then more people would do so.

Do you think we should not help the poor at all? Do you think we should allow families to swim or sink on their own?

I don’t agree with the current system because it doesn’t actually help the poor. But I do believe in helping those in need. I don’t think that the tragedy of a young family’s baby being born with major health problems should be ignored because of a Scrooge-like idea that he will have to be supported by the tax-payers.

.

 

[nmgauss]

It is wonderful that your family was able to do these things. It sounds like your family lived out in the country where they could do things like hunt rabbits, glean fields, and fish. Poor people in the cities can’t do those things.

People below the poverty line get government help.

Link. Sorry, it is not quite 10-fold.

We actually shrug because we think at least the mother didn’t have an abortion.

First, we do not know the child was unplanned; all we know is that the child is unhealthy enough to make having insurance a necessity.

Now, I am not a fan of the ACA, nor particularly of Medicaid, bit I do think that young families *ought to be *supported by the community. Maybe if the incentives were not towards having babies without already having husbands the illegitimacy rate would kot be so high. And maybe if it were easier to rise out of poverty, *as it once was, *then more people would do so.

Do you think we should not help the poor at all? Do you think we should allow families to swim or sink on their own?

I don’t agree with the current system because it doesn’t actually help the poor. But I do believe in helping those in need. I don’t think that the tragedy of a young family’s baby being born with major health problems should be ignored because of a Scrooge-like idea that he will have to be supported by the tax-payers.

.

One aspect of receiving aid that I think is missing is that many people in this position don’t seem to have a sense that they are obligated to return the favor. If a person is on Medicaid or food stamps, are they told that they are now beholden to the providers to demonstrate their appreciation by either showing an effort to improve themselves or perform some kind of work. If there is no sense of obligation, why try to get off relief? This is manna from God and a person is a sucker if they do anything to stop this unending free aid. My hard working father was laughed at by some idle people sitting on their front porches because he was working, and they could receive free aid without working.

 

[Robert_Sock]

One aspect of receiving aid that I think is missing is that many people in this position don’t seem to have a sense that they are obligated to return the favor. If a person is on Medicaid or food stamps, are they told that they are now beholden to the providers to demonstrate their appreciation by either showing an effort to improve themselves or perform some kind of work. If there is no sense of obligation, why try to get off relief? This is manna from God and a person is a sucker if they do anything to stop this unending free aid. My hard working father was laughed at by some idle people sitting on their front porches because he was working, and they could receive free aid without working.

Where is all this ‘free aid’ that you’re talking about? How much do you think people actually receive? I’m on Medicare, and my monthly income from them is only around $1100 per month; not much at all for somebody living in Los Angeles where rents are sky high.

 

[St_Francis]

One aspect of receiving aid that I think is missing is that many people in this position don’t seem to have a sense that they are obligated to return the favor. If a person is on Medicaid or food stamps, are they told that they are now beholden to the providers to demonstrate their appreciation by either showing an effort to improve themselves or perform some kind of work. If there is no sense of obligation, why try to get off relief? This is manna from God and a person is a sucker if they do anything to stop this unending free aid. My hard working father was laughed at by some idle people sitting on their front porches because he was working, and they could receive free aid without working.

One of my first concerns about the safety net is that it makes it so that those with good health and good fortune are not moved to compassion by the plight of those in need. Those who are not in need think, “I gave at the office [through taxes],” and move along.

And the safety net is simply the doling out of money. Often there are people in need of something other than money; even people who do need some money often need more. But those who are working have work more just to provide the money and therefore have less time to help others 1 on 1.

And finally, yes, when money comes through private charity, the recipient does know that it came out of a real person’s wallet, a person who worked to get it. And so there is a sense of gratitude, because the person *gave. *Coming from the government, which itself calls the safety net an entitlement, there is no personal touch, and there is no gratitude.

I am not happy with the current set-up, and also have suspicions about it, but that doesn’t mean that we should just throw up our hands and say, They’re poor because they made stupid decisions, so let’s just leave them alone!"

I think that wisdom and prayer need to be brought to bear against the problem, and a recognition that different people have different needs, including, sometimes, the need to feel the consequences of their actions.

 

[white_sheep]

I would say it is 75 years at least, not 50, that the war on poverty has been going on. That would be when the minimum wage was instituted with the two fold purpose of increases wages for above average workers and pricing undesirables out of the market for eugenics purposes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I would say it is 75 years at least, not 50, that the war on poverty has been going on. That would be when the minimum wage was instituted with the two fold purpose of increases wages for above average workers and pricing undesirables out of the market for eugenics purposes.

Eugenics was certainly not the stated purpose of the minimum wage. And if some people at the time had that in their heads as a “secret purpose”, how in the world are you, 75 years later, able to tell what they were thinking? I think it reflects more your personal disapproval of the policy rather than any fact about the original policy makers.

 

[white_sheep]

Eugenics was certainly not the stated purpose of the minimum wage. And if some people at the time had that in their heads as a “secret purpose”, how in the world are you, 75 years later, able to tell what they were thinking? I think it reflects more your personal disapproval of the policy rather than any fact about the original policy makers.

It wasn’t everyone’s reason, but it wasn’t secret either. The liberal Yankees wanted higher wages for their kind of good decent deserving folk, but the undesirables in the south were working too cheap and keeping wages down. So if they increase the wage beyond the value point of such workers they have eliminated the underclass and have no competition making their higher wages affordable. The hope was without work or money they would stop reproducing and die off. Eugenics was really pretty common in this era with the start of planned parenthood, forced sterilizations, etc.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It wasn’t everyone’s reason, but it wasn’t secret either. The liberal Yankees wanted higher wages for their kind of good decent deserving folk, but the undesirables in the south were working too cheap and keeping wages down. So if they increase the wage beyond the value point of such workers they have eliminated the underclass and have no competition making their higher wages affordable. The hope was without work or money they would stop reproducing and die off. Eugenics was really pretty common in this era with the start of planned parenthood, forced sterilizations, etc.

You still have given no evidence that the minimum wage was instituted for the purpose you say, other than your speculation.