Abbi Debelack
The War on Poverty
Since its’ beginning, the United States -- and every other country -- has been fighting an ongoing battle against poverty. How is it that thousands of people live frivolously, while thousands more are struggling just to survive? For generations, people generally ignored this issue, and the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Even with the help of FDR’s “New Deal” programs, we couldn’t seem to break this cycle. It wasn’t until Lyndon B. Johnson’s declaration to fight this “War on Poverty”, that the government of the United States began to take further, more serious action.
On paper, this urge to fight the War on Poverty sounded like a good idea, and it was for awhile. Because of it, many laws and regulations were put into place trying to support those who needed help the most. Some of those passed include: the Social Security Act, the Food Stamp Act, and the Economic Opportunity Act. Johnson thought the opportunity cost: giving up citizen tax dollars to aid someone else, would greatly pay off in the end. 
However, is the trade-off really worth it? As you can see in the graph below, through continual efforts, as of 2012, the poverty rate had only dropped 4% since its’ conception in 1964. The US has spent more than $22 trillion to fight this war, which is more than three times what it’s spent on all military endeavors since the American Revolution.
The government approach to the War on Poverty has proven to be ineffective. There’s an old Chinese proverb that states, “ Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”. In order to truly fight this War on Poverty, the government shouldn’t handout welfare money so freely. While it’s understandable that some people with physical or mental disabilities truly need to rely on someone elses’ income, there are far too many able bodied people receiving welfare. This is why the poverty level is still so high. It is too easy to receive the allotted benefit than it is to work. Without work, there is often a loss of self-respect and ambition to better oneself or change ones’ circumstance.
The programs provided to fight the War on Poverty often disincentivize work. For example a recipient is able-bodied, unemployed and receiving welfare benefits. If going out and getting a job meant a reduction in benefits they would likely analyze the loss of benefit with the gain in income from employment. Much like a business would do a marginal cost vs benefit analysis, many find that the marginal increase in income (benefit) not worth the marginal loss in the welfare benefit (cost).
Finally, whether or not we want to admit it, the Federal government has limited resources. As of this writing, the Federal debt is in excess of $18 trillion. To remain a viable nation, we must begin using these limited resources more effectively. The War on Poverty is a lost war. More efficient and effective programs MUST be developed as merely a stopgap for those temporarily unable to work. They can no longer be a way of life. It does the recipient no good and certainly does our country no good.
Here is a link to a news broadcast with John Stossel, explaining that concept more in depth. In conclusion, it is impossible to fully eradicate poverty. But perhaps if we change the way we’re trying to fight it right now, we can lower it the best we can.
Works Cited
Emaze Presentations. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.
"The War on Poverty After 50 Years." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
"War on Poverty." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting topic a we just learned in class about the huge differences existing between the top 1% rich of the population and the poorest in the country. The country should definitely give aid to this people under the poverty line, however, you are correct when saying that giving them money instead of jobs will only cause the situation to stay the same, and even putting the economy of the country in bigger disadvantage because of the big debt it already has. Though unemployment at a certain percentage is good, this number should only include those who are looking for betterment and not people who are just unwilling to work because of the fear of losing the benefits they already have. Good job on this post!
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your article, I learned a lot about the war on poverty that I never knew about before. Since the United States has spent 22 trillion dollars trying to fight the war on poverty, I was expecting the decrease in poverty to go down by more than 4% since 1964. I agree that there must be another way to stop poverty in the United States, since there are so many people who are well off. The start to end poverty must begin with motivation for an increase in jobs for those people. You did a great job with use of vocabulary words and visuals. Nice job Abbi!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAbbi, this was a very interesting topic to write about. I like how you included historical evidence as well as a helpful graph to help your readers better understand this piece. I usually don't really think about the huge gap between the richest and poorest people of the country, but this blog post made me think about it even more! I can see how they thought that the opportunity cost of giving tax dollars to some one else would help but maybe it does not. Will people start to rely on the government giving them money, rather than them trying to become wealthier? Will the marginal benefit of this specific method of redistributing income exceed the marginal cost? Theses are all questions that we need to consider with the War on Poverty. Good use of links and graphs!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very argumentative topic indeed. I had no idea that in the past 5 decades the poverty rate has only gone down by 4%; that's pretty pathetic for all of the work that we "seem" to be putting in. A lot of it does have to do with work ethic of those who are used to receiving benefits. A child growing up in a house that relies on government income will most likely grow up and rely on that income as well. One thing that I'd like to know is how bad this issue is in other countries; are their countries that have nearly solved the poverty issue? Can we follow in their footsteps? What are we doing wrong or not doing enough of to the point where it takes roughly 50 years to lower the statistics by a mere 4%? Thanks for the insight on this problem!
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting topic because in retrospect the opportunity cost shouldn’t be such a hassle because the money goes to helping other people in the country, but you’re right in saying that the current programs are not allowing this to happen. At this point the programs are not progressing our country because they don’t aim to find people jobs, they simply funnel money to those in poverty regardless of their efforts or ability to find work. As you said, if people can stay at home and receive money, why would they feel inclined to get a job? It seems that the trade-off isn’t worth it simply because we are losing so much money and gaining very minimal positive results, so until the program is reformed, I would agree with you in saying the war on poverty is lost.
ReplyDeleteFor many people this is true, that we have spent so much money on the abled bodies who are not working. We are not helping them and now the marginal cost is outweighing the marginal benefit. This is also a debate on whether or not this should be a pure public good or pure private good. Personally this situation isn't helping us but the welfare right now that we are providing should be a pure private good, and in the future if the government decides that they want to create programs to help the abled bodied who are struggling, it should be a pure public good, which means it will not be exclusive to anyone. I know if we make everything public and not exclusive there will be less competition and less people wanting the program, but what we are doing right now with this fight isn't working. This is simply another option we may have as a country.
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese proverb explains poverty since there are some people who are in perfectly good in shape to work but choose not to. Their almost free riders since they aren't contributing back to the economy. Those who do get back on their feet with the help of the government give back to the economy by working and purchasing products. Homeless will go down if people start to work and stop letting others work for them.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a great post and good topic because we can surely all relate to it since we have learned so much about poverty in our school and other places. I really liked the graph you used within your post because its message was very effective. It helped convey that even though the United States is spending all of this money on providing for the poor, the poverty rate really isn't changing that much. I also liked reading this because I agree with your statement that the "programs provided to fight the War on Poverty often disincentivize work". I really do think that people understand that they have that support from the government if they need it so in turn they don't want to work. And while the government does have that responsibility of supporting some people, they can't support everyone. I agree that our government needs to start turning their focus to more beneficial things. I think this a huge debate right now especially between the two political parties and it will be interesting to see where this goes come the next President.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good piece of analysis on the topic. The war on poverty is truly a futile "war" as unfortunate as it is poverty will always be. This can also be analysed through simple scarcity, unlimited wants/limited resources are a perfect combination for poverty.
ReplyDeleteThe income inequality in america is a popular issue in the news right now, and you always hear people talking about the one percent that controls most of the nations wealth. but what I would wonder about is how that effects the rest of the people that don't control that much money, and how it would effect them if suddenly all wealth was redistributed equally. While that would eliminate poverty, would it be effective in helping the nation or just act as a quick fix for poor people?
ReplyDeleteIt's crazy to see that the poverty rate hasn't changed much since we made the adjustments. I think it might even be a good idea to stop providing tax dollars for people in poverty. This will give them motivation to go out and get themselves a job and then they will have money and so will the people who are paying taxes to help them spend money on things they don't need/
ReplyDeleteI wonder instead of giving able-bodied people welfare, if the government could give them free job training somehow so they would in fact be teaching the man how to fish. This would reduce costs of paying for their welfare constantly and would instead reduce unemployment and also crime.
ReplyDeleteIf we are measuring the strength of society in terms of income equality, then transfer payments are a vital portion of decreasing the poverty rate. By taxing the highest earners and redistributing the income to the lower quartiles of earners, then the US can decrease income inequality. Of course, this has its own trade-off. If we increase marginal taxes on income, there is less incentive to work hard, as any income past a certain point will be taxed more heavily.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how often we hear of poverty in places abroad, but sometimes forget how real it is even at home. I completely agree with the proverb you shared. In my opinion, improved education and job training seems like a far more effective way to increase the labor force. However, all things must come at a cost, which leads me to wonder if this be more or less cost effective than what is already being done through welfare programs. Would the marginal benefits of the effects of more skilled workers be great enough to overcome the costs of training these workers?
ReplyDeletePoverty is an ongoing thing all around the world, If you were to drive down a busy street in milwaukee you're almost guaranteed to see atleast one homeless person. This could change though, if all homeless people received jobs and were provided with a place to stay until they can afford one for themselves.
ReplyDeletePoverty is a huge issue around the globe, and something that big is really hard to change with just one country. We have to come together as a whole and try fix these issues of poverty. However, we also have to make sure that it is indeed worth our money and limited resources.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good topic that was brought up because it can be seen very widely. For example if you were to travel to Detroit all that we could see is homeless people and that the city is in poverty majorly. But its seems as the government has some very useful programs for the poor. But these programs aren't enough for these people to stay on there feet. Some of the programs that we can see are WIC Checks, Food Stamps, and EBT Cards. Although these are useful programs the government thinks that they are enough for someone to survive but they aren't really enough for that person. One thing the government could do is open a job fair to these people so they can get back on there feet. I do agree that it is a war because we just continue to see this rise and rise. The big factor is they these people need to get jobs. Which is something that needs to happen in terms of companies creating more jobs.
ReplyDeleteI really must say that I trully do agree with your arguement. It’s been a long time since the government has actually helped someone out of poverty and with all the new and constantly changing meanings of to be wealthy it is near impossible for someone to actually get out of poverty. It could be agreed upon that the programs that the government has implicated have somewhat assisted some to get a job, or find some type of living residencies, but there is still so much more remaining to do and it seems unfair that America is always willing to give a helping hand to those in third world countries and yet there are thousands upon millions that go day in and day out without food nor shelter. I do believe that there is a way that we could all come together and lend a helping hand to those that starve on our streets, but it’s feared that this won’t actually elimenate poverty, only help it for an extended period of time.
ReplyDeletePoverty is what we struggles for ourselves sometimes too. What people don't realize is that sometimes we take things for granted and that is something serious that we don't think about it that much. Instead of buying something everyday-like clothes-then maybe we as humans give the 10% to the people that really need and struggle with the money.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that it could be considered a war. People don’t realize how many struggling people there actually are, and it’s actually sad that at one point, America had the “bright” idea to make it even harder for these people and put anti-homeless spikes onto the ground. Instead of investing time and money and resources into placing down spikes, why don’t they invest their time into something more ideal, and save the very homeless people they are trying to prevent?
ReplyDeleteI loved the Chinese proverb in your essay. I strongly believe that you have to teach people how to be successful rather than just giving handouts. The idea is great to end poverty, but there is a great cost. I couldn't believe that war against poverty has cost the US more than an actual war. Yes, poverty is a big problem in the United States and tends to be forgotten about but rather than giving handouts there should be programs that educate people to fight poverty.
ReplyDeleteYou had a good argument! I liked how you gave statistics to show that as much as we'd like to believe the rate of poverty is going down, it really isn't. I agree that too many able people are using welfare, and this is causing a set back in our country. One thing I think the government should do to try and decrease the number of people on welfare would be to provide job opportunities for them. This would help them earn more money, and eventually get off government support so those who actually need it can receive more.
ReplyDeletePoverty is a very prominent issue in today’s world, so I am glad that you discussed it. I like how you showed the rate of poverty; it’s unfortunate that it has been getting worse. Also, I thought that the quote that you included was very relevant to the topic; giving money to the poor only helps for a little while, but getting them a job will help much more in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThis has got to be my favorite. So many people just think of homeless people as a sad thing, but they don't do anything to help them. Sure we give them money, but they need motivation to get themselves up and running back to normal. Including the opportunity cost and the limited resources was genius! Not everyone can be rich.
ReplyDeleteI like how you picked two topical issues, poverty and national debt, and put them together for us. Poverty is very prevalent in the United States and I agree that we have too many people currently receiving welfare. The statistics provided helped to better put into perspective how much the United States spends on welfare and food stamps and how little of an effect it is actually having. Motivating the free riders of society is not going to be an easy task as they receive more benefits from welfare than they would actually working in a job.
ReplyDelete