IGX

On Jan. 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson used his State of the Union address to announce an ambitious government undertaking. "This administration today, here and now," he thundered, "declares unconditional war on poverty in America."

Fifty years later, we're losing that war. Fifteen percent of Americans still live in poverty, according to the official census poverty report for 2012, unchanged since the mid-1960s. Liberals argue that we aren't spending enough money on poverty-fighting programs, but that's not the problem. In reality, we're losing the war on poverty because we have forgotten the original goal, as LBJ stated it half a century ago: "to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities."

The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans. Government spent $916 billion on these programs in 2012 alone, and roughly 100 million Americans received aid from at least one of them, at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. (That figure doesn't include Social Security or Medicare benefits.) Federal and state welfare spending, adjusted for inflation, is 16 times greater than it was in 1964. If converted to cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all official poverty in the U.S.

LBJ promised that the war on poverty would be an "investment" that would "return its cost manifold to the entire economy." But the country has invested $20.7 trillion in 2011 dollars over the past 50 years. What does America have to show for its investment? Apparently, almost nothing: The official poverty rate persists with little improvement.

Do higher living standards for the poor mean that the war on poverty has succeeded? No. To judge the effort, consider LBJ's original aim. He sought to give poor Americans "opportunity not doles," planning to shrink welfare dependence not expand it. In his vision, the war on poverty would strengthen poor Americans' capacity to support themselves, transforming "taxeaters" into "taxpayers." It would attack not just the symptoms of poverty but, more important, remove the causes.

By that standard, the war on poverty has been a catastrophe. The root "causes" of poverty have not shrunk but expanded as family structure disintegrated and labor-force participation among men dropped. A large segment of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than when the war on poverty began.

The collapse of marriage in low-income communities has played a substantial role in the declining capacity for self-support. In 1963, 6% of American children were born out of wedlock. Today the number stands at 41%. As benefits swelled, welfare increasingly served as a substitute for a bread-winning husband in the home.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Just think about how much education and training that the wars we've waged on Israel's behalf in the middle east would have paid for!

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Just think about how much education and training that the wars we've waged on Israel's behalf in the middle east would have paid for!

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Just think about how much education and training that the wars we've waged on Israel's behalf in the middle east would have paid for!

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Let's be honest, it wouldn't have turned out any differently. US politicians are, almost to a man, corrupt, petty thieves with law degrees, and don't give a fuck about their constituency or this nation's long term success.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Let's be honest, it wouldn't have turned out any differently. US politicians are, almost to a man, corrupt, petty thieves with law degrees, and don't give a fuck about their constituency or this nation's long term success.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Just think about how much education and training that the wars we've waged on Israel's behalf in the middle east would have paid for!

nafod wrote:

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Just think about how much education and training that the wars we've waged on Israel's behalf in the middle east would have paid for!

Easy there, shipmate. It put me through flight school.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Just think about how much education and training that the wars we've waged on Israel's behalf in the middle east would have paid for!

seeahill wrote:Bats,
Who are you quoting above?

Turdacious wrote:Inarestin' article about poverty measures:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdes ... erica.html