• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

We reformed welfare for the poor in 1996. Now what we need to do is reform welfare for the rich.

Those reforms sucked...because they still did not address the cause of poverty. The idea that we should just shrug and say, "oh, we tried once...let's forget about it" is ridiculous.
 
Who do you think has swelled the poverty numbers? Under the welfare reform of 1996, those not disabled can only remain on welfare for two years.

So let's hear your plan?


I'm not sure why you even mentioned time limits. What good is a time limit if we are not simultaneously requiring mandatory participation in work training or education programs? If we are not utilizing means of helping these people become more marketable, more skilled?
 
I'm not sure why you even mentioned time limits. What good is a time limit if we are not simultaneously requiring mandatory participation in work training or education programs? If we are not utilizing means of helping these people become more marketable, more skilled?

most states DO require that, btw.
 
Those reforms sucked...because they still did not address the cause of poverty. The idea that we should just shrug and say, "oh, we tried once...let's forget about it" is ridiculous.

so what's your plan to address the causes of poverty?
 
Excellent point! I think many people would be surprised their beliefs about welfare are myths. Here are some of the major ones below:

Five Major Welfare Myths

"Myth #1: The typical welfare recipient is a black inner city single mother.

The Census Bureau's most recent annual poverty report found that urban black mothers constitute less than one out of six of all poor households. Rural white families account for more--one out of five. White surburban families account for even more--one out of four.

Myth #2: The poor are lazy.

Forty percent of poor adults work, although many cannot find full time jobs. Indeed, even when they do they may still be in poverty. Some 11 million jobs in 1991 paid less than $11,500, $2,000 under the official poverty level for a family of four. Of those poor adults who don't work, 90 percent fall into the following categories: 22 percent are disabled, 17 percent are in school, 21 percent are elderly retirees, 31 percent have family responsibilities.

Myth #3: Welfare mothers breed welfare daughters.

Two long term studies reported by the House Ways and Means Committee in 1992 found that only about one in five daughters of "highly welfare dependent" mothers themselves become highly dependent on welfare. The rest rely on welfare sporadically or not at all.

Myth #4: Throwing people off the welfare rolls will eventually improve their lives and save taxpayers money.

The most celebrated experiment in welfare reform has occurred in Michigan. Governor Engler completely eliminated his state's $240 million General Assistance(GA) payments to 83,000 childless, able bodied adults.Only 8 percent of these former GA recipients found employment and they earn
an average of only $120 a week. Many sell blood for $20 a pint. Over one third lost their homes when the program ended. As one study notes, if only 5 percent of these former GA recipients end up in prison or a state psychiatric institution all the taxpayer savings from ending General Assistance will be lost.

Myth #5: Welfare is cheaper than creating well paying public jobs.

In his book "Securing the Right to Employment", Philip Harvey calculates that in 1986 we could have achieved full employment by creating l0.4 million public service jobs. He further assumed that the average annual wage would be $13,000. The cost of such a program would have been a daunting $142 billion. But when we deduct from this sum the taxes that would be paid by these new workers and the savings from drastically reduced unemployment insurance payments, welfare , Medicaid, food stamps and other expenditures directly linked to low income and unemployment overall we would have spent $13 billion less. A full employment program, even excluding the social savingsfrom reduced family violence, more stable communities, and less crime, pays for itself in reduced welfare expenditures.

If we can overcome these five myths about welfare we may well engage in a national dialogue with meaningful results, not only for the one in five Americans who now live in poverty, but for the nation as a whole. But this will occur only when we challenge and overcome the welfare myths that paralyze our thinking."
https://www.msu.edu/user/skourtes/myths.html

Funny, I didn't say any of those things.

I'm seeing several liberal posters make a bunch of outrageous leaps to attack a statement that was not only logically sound, but also pretty damned accurate. The core causes of poverty still exist. The programs we have utilized have not decrease those causes in any significant number. Even prior to the recession, poverty levels did not typically decrease. They trended stagnant, or with slight increases. You can blame the recession for some increase in poverty, but you can't blame all poverty on the recession.

I want programs that actually benefit people in poverty, that help them advance themselves instead of helping them maintain the status quo in crappy apartments, or clothing their kids in Goodwill bargains, or feeding their kids once a day because the food stamps don't go far enough, or telling their 18 year old that college isn't an option, so he better start applying for McDonalds or high-risk labor positions. I'd rather we actually admitted that the system absolutely sucks and start working to fix it.

And, I'd rather we stop playing some stupid little game with stereotypes and generalizations. I didn't blame poverty on the poor. I didn't call every person in poverty a single black mother. I didn't say that people in poverty are lazy or stupid or incapable. I said that there are common trends amongst the poor, and there are easy ways to fix them.

You can take the status quo if you want, but it wasn't working before the recession and it won't work after.
 
Last edited:
so what's your plan to address the causes of poverty?

I've already posted it. In this thread and in several others. I'm not going over it again to prove anything to you, especially after you have repeatedly made it obvious that you will continually refuse to accept what I say at face value, and will instead insert ridiculous strawman and distortions into the argument to try and make me look like every other stereotypical conservative you think exists. Find it yourself.
 
Granted the source is biased here BUT if true, this will certainly help. eh?

Yesterday, it was announced that an astounding 1 in 6 Americans are living in poverty. President Obama's response? To demand a tax on donations to soup kitchens and other charities that help people desperately in need. The President's proposal will impact approximately 40% of all the tax deductible contributions, and essentially penalize soup kitchens, hospitals, and churches that provide essential services to those who need them most. It’s no wonder this tax hike has been rejected on both sides of the aisle.

Eric Cantor || Majority Leader || Blog || President Obama's Tax On Soup Kitchens
 
well, you could try to prove that statement. in fact, especially these days, when welfare is limited, children don't see their mothers on welfare for a long period of time, so are not inured to it like you might think.

welfare is not our big issue......medicare is. jobs are.

Prove it? I don't even have any idea what "highly welfare dependant" means. Do you?
 
Prove it? I don't even have any idea what "highly welfare dependant" means. Do you?

if you have no idea what it means, why would dismiss the study out of hand?
 
if you have no idea what it means, why would dismiss the study out of hand?

Because that is what you do with studies that simply make things up.
 
Because that is what you do with studies that simply make things up.

Nothing you have stated serves as a basis to support your assertion. Either provide a credible argument or STFU. Simple one line responses are not sufficient, which is especially true when we take into consideration the content value of your typical post.
 
Sustained robust economic growth reduces poverty. Rapidly growing East Asian economies, not to mention Brazil and India, offer good illustrations. On the flip side, stagnant or sluggishly growing economies typically result in an increase in the incidence of poverty on account of high unemployment (which cuts off people from incomes), little or no real income growth, and, in a potential long-term aspect, foregone competitiveness (such economies lead to efforts at "quick fixes" that ignore structural realities and result in foregone investment).
 
We can throw out any study that uses words like "highly welfare dependent" .

All that means is they had a desired result and took out enough people until they got there.

You should be able to look at the study and show that is what happened. Not easily done, I agree. But possible. Can you link anyone who has done that?
 
Not only did you take a flying leap off the cliff to make a lot of assumptions, but you put a lot of words into my mouth that I did not say.

Bovine scatology. All I did was interpret your obvious generalizations.

I'll make this painfully clear for you, and perhaps you'll actually take the time to understand what I'm saying instead of standing on your little soap box, attacking an idea I didn't express:

1. I want to provide programs to help the poor overcome the obstacles that keep them poor, namely lack of education and job skills.

In your previous posts, I saw no reference to any plans, only your opinions. In regards to this, as someone has already pointed out, these programs already exist. Furthermore, what good does more education do when there are no jobs? Any plan for providing employment? Because there are many highly educated people out of work these days. Just because someone is low income doesn't prove that they are uneducated.

2. I never said we should remove their benefits or let children starve in the process of helping the poor acquire the above skills.

You certainly have issues with providing people with food stamps since they apparently need more "self accountability." What does that imply? That they don't have accountability. That is a false premise.

3. I never said that the poor are lazy or "parasites" or even blamed them for the lack of education or job skills.
4. My point in attacking the entitlements designed to "prevent" poverty was to point out that they don't, in fact, prevent poverty. These programs sustain people who are still living in poverty despite the money/programs.

If you want to reducet poverty, providing employment would be a excellent start. Otherwise, these dreaded entitlements are all people have to feed their children that they apparently shouldn't have had anyhow.

See, I want better for the poor, and I think the programs we have no don't offer "better". I think they offer a security blanket while leaving them standing out in the cold. It doesn't solve the problem, it just makes it more tolerable.

Fine, so how should they pull themselves out of poverty? Education is a nice sounding idea, and yet with no employment prospects, it's pointless. Skills training? Great. No jobs, no money. More entitlements.

But by all means, turn my statement into a rich vs. poor argument.

That's the common reaction-blame class warfare, and yet no where have I argued that wealth is bad. I have only argued that corporations avoid paying taxes, avoid providing domestic employment, and all the while receive government subsidies. Then the neo cons complain about food stamps.

Jump to conclusions. Attack me for wanting a better program and a better opportunity for people. Go ahead.

Hyperbole.

It just proves you don't care what I have to say, you just want to get up there and rant away about something not only unrelated to my argument, but completely outside of any logical interpretation of what I was saying.

Look, no one gives a crap about what I have to say, either. Otherwise, you would have addressed my points instead of raving about class warfare, and monologuing about plans to educate the poor. And yet a plan to provide them with jobs after they become skilled and educated has still not been addressed.

Who do you think has swelled the poverty numbers? Under the welfare reform of 1996, those not disabled can only remain on welfare for two years.

So let's hear your plan?

Plan? What plan?

Those reforms sucked...because they still did not address the cause of poverty. The idea that we should just shrug and say, "oh, we tried once...let's forget about it" is ridiculous.

What is the cause?

i mean to hear some people tell it, providing the poor with food and shelter is the cause. It's almost as daft as the entire premise of a jobless recovery. There can be no recovery much less growth without employment. Can we at least agree on that?

I'm not sure why you even mentioned time limits. What good is a time limit if we are not simultaneously requiring mandatory participation in work training or education programs? If we are not utilizing means of helping these people become more marketable, more skilled?

And again, where will they work?

so what's your plan to address the causes of poverty?

no plan.


I've already posted it. In this thread and in several others. I'm not going over it again to prove anything to you, especially after you have repeatedly made it obvious that you will continually refuse to accept what I say at face value, and will instead insert ridiculous strawman and distortions into the argument to try and make me look like every other stereotypical conservative you think exists. Find it yourself.

No you haven't.

again, what specifically is your plan?

So far, I've gathered that there needs to be more time limits on foodstamps and unemployment, more "job skills" and more requirements for "education."

Sustained robust economic growth reduces poverty. Rapidly growing East Asian economies, not to mention Brazil and India, offer good illustrations. On the flip side, stagnant or sluggishly growing economies typically result in an increase in the incidence of poverty on account of high unemployment (which cuts off people from incomes), little or no real income growth, and, in a potential long-term aspect, foregone competitiveness (such economies lead to efforts at "quick fixes" that ignore structural realities and result in foregone investment).

Indeed.
 
Bovine scatology. All I did was interpret your obvious generalizations.



In your previous posts, I saw no reference to any plans, only your opinions. In regards to this, as someone has already pointed out, these programs already exist. Furthermore, what good does more education do when there are no jobs? Any plan for providing employment? Because there are many highly educated people out of work these days. Just because someone is low income doesn't prove that they are uneducated.



You certainly have issues with providing people with food stamps since they apparently need more "self accountability." What does that imply? That they don't have accountability. That is a false premise.



If you want to reducet poverty, providing employment would be a excellent start. Otherwise, these dreaded entitlements are all people have to feed their children that they apparently shouldn't have had anyhow.



Fine, so how should they pull themselves out of poverty? Education is a nice sounding idea, and yet with no employment prospects, it's pointless. Skills training? Great. No jobs, no money. More entitlements.



That's the common reaction-blame class warfare, and yet no where have I argued that wealth is bad. I have only argued that corporations avoid paying taxes, avoid providing domestic employment, and all the while receive government subsidies. Then the neo cons complain about food stamps.



Hyperbole.



Look, no one gives a crap about what I have to say, either. Otherwise, you would have addressed my points instead of raving about class warfare, and monologuing about plans to educate the poor. And yet a plan to provide them with jobs after they become skilled and educated has still not been addressed.



Plan? What plan?



What is the cause?

i mean to hear some people tell it, providing the poor with food and shelter is the cause. It's almost as daft as the entire premise of a jobless recovery. There can be no recovery much less growth without employment. Can we at least agree on that?



And again, where will they work?



no plan.




No you haven't.



So far, I've gathered that there needs to be more time limits on foodstamps and unemployment, more "job skills" and more requirements for "education."



Indeed.

This will be the last response from me, because this isn't the first time you've absolutely miscontrued my statements and accused me of saying/believing things I don't believe. Debating with you is pointless, so it won't happen again.

I didn't discuss time limits in the sense that I think we should have one specifically.
I didn't say that the entitlements CAUSE poverty. I said they don't FIX poverty.
I listed several common causes of poverty.
I indicated my plan in this thread. I've also indicated it in several other threads. Also, on IRC.
I don't have a jobs plan, and I clearly included the fact that poverty was not declining prior to the recession, indicating that even without high unemployment, we still have poverty, which means not having available jobs is only a small part of the overall problem.
You most CERTAINLY made this an issue of rich v. poor.
That wasn't hyperbole, that was metaphor.
There were no "obvious generalizations". There were facts. You misinterpreted facts and you're flat out wrong. Sorry.
I never said we should stop giving any aid to people who need it. Ever. Like seriously, never. You won't find it anywhere on this board.


So there, that's it. Maybe next time instead of making stupid accusations and attacking something that I didn't do you'll actually do the research into what I've said...or, better yet, ask. Then again, I won't be responding to you moving forward, so just go ahead and keep being 100% wrong. That's fine.
 
We can throw out any study that uses words like "highly welfare dependent" .

All that means is they had a desired result and took out enough people until they got there.

Thanks for you opinion! Got any statistics to refute those in the study?
 
You should be able to look at the study and show that is what happened. Not easily done, I agree. But possible. Can you link anyone who has done that?

I don't know. It's not worth the effort IMO.
 
Those reforms sucked...because they still did not address the cause of poverty. The idea that we should just shrug and say, "oh, we tried once...let's forget about it" is ridiculous.

What are you talking about? Please be specific, I am not a mind reader.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why you even mentioned time limits. What good is a time limit if we are not simultaneously requiring mandatory participation in work training or education programs? If we are not utilizing means of helping these people become more marketable, more skilled?


The President's job plan does that so I am surprised you do not support it. Even the Republicans like that part of it.
 
Last edited:
The President's job plan does that so I am surprised you do not support. Even the Republicans like that part of it.

My understanding is that the program the president is proposing is for those on unemployment specifically. That doesn't cover every or even most of those in poverty. I also never said I don't support such a program.
 
Back
Top Bottom