Mission Accomplished: The War on Poverty is Over

[Falsedawn]

Now we need to cut benefits

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/us/politics/white-house-war-on-poverty-work-requirements.html

Declaring War on Poverty ‘Largely Over,’ White House Urges Work Requirements for Aid

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers declared on Thursday that America’s long-running war on poverty “is largely over and a success,” as it made the case for imposing new work requirements on Americans who benefit from federal safety net programs.

The report contends that millions of Americans have become overly reliant on government help — and less self-sufficient — and provided data intended to support the administration’s goal of tying public benefit programs more closely to work.

In April, the president signed an executive order to expand the use of work requirements — which condition benefitson recipients working, preparing for work or participating in similar activities such as community service — and the White House has pushed for legislative changes to certain assistance programs to make such requirements more uniform.

The White House report, using census data from 2013, found that more than one-half of working-age, non-disabled beneficiaries of Medicaid, federal housing support and food stamps worked fewer than 20 hours per week in the month in which they received benefits from those programs. The report makes the case that receiving Medicaid or other federal benefits can discourage Americans from working more, since they lose access to those benefits if their incomes climb too high.

Would Donald Trump just get his people to go out there and...lie?

Oh boy.

The crux of the government position can directly be shown to be tenuous (if not outright false) when you actually look at wages as they relate to SNAP enrollment.

But, we knew that

https://www.cbpp.org/research/pover...-requirements-dont-cut-poverty-evidence-shows

Work Requirements Don’t Cut Poverty, Evidence Shows

The evidence from an array of rigorous evaluations,[3] however, does not support the view that work requirements are highly effective, as their proponents often claim. Instead, the research shows:

• Employment increases among recipients subject to work requirements were modest and faded over time (for more, see Finding #1).
• Stable employment among recipients subject to work requirements proved the exception, not the norm (for more, see Finding #2).
• Most recipients with significant barriers to employment never found work even after participating in work programs that were otherwise deemed successful (for more, see Finding #3).
• Over the long term, the most successful programs supported efforts to boost the education and skills of those subject to work requirements, rather than simply requiring them to search for work or find a job (for more, see Finding #4).
• The large majority of individuals subject to work requirements remained poor, and some became poorer (for more, see Finding #5).
• Voluntary employment programs can significantly increase employment without the negative impacts of ending basic assistance for individuals who can’t meet mandatory work requirements (for more, see Finding #6).

We say it fairly consistently, the people who use long term benefits consistently are students, children, and elderly people. Statistics show that as well.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html

Who Participated in 2012?

• Children under age 18: Those under 18 were more likely to receive means-tested benefits than all other age groups.

o In an average month, 39.2 percent of children received some type of means-tested
benefit, compared with 16.6 percent of people age 18 to 64 and 12.6 percent of people
65 and older.

• The black population: At 41.6 percent, blacks were more likely to participate in government assistance programs in an average month.

o The black participation rate was followed by Hispanics at 36.4 percent, Asians or Pacific
Islanders at 17.8 percent, and non-Hispanic whites at 13.2 percent.

• Female-householder families: At 50 percent, people in female-householder families had the highest rates of participation in major means-tested programs.

o The rates for people in married-couple families and male-householder families were 14.7
percent and 29.5 percent, respectively.

• Non-high school graduates: 37.3 percent of people who did not graduate from high school received means-tested benefits.

o 21.6 percent of high school graduates and 9.6 percent of individuals with one or more
years of college participated in one of the major means-tested government assistance
programs.

• The unemployed: In an average month, 33.5 percent of the unemployed received means-tested benefits in an average month of 2012.

o By comparison, 25.3 percent of those not in the labor force, 17.6 percent of part-time
workers, and 6.7 percent of full-time workers participated in means-tested programs.

War on Poverty is over? Make poverty great again.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Red is above blue. We won. Get over it.

 

[nostradumbass]

I'm not a welfare deadbeat, so this doesn't harm me.

Omg, Trump is spending too much, omg, Trump is cutting entitlement spending.

Get an education and a job and stop trying to raise a familyof 12 on food stamps and minimumwage, problem solved.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

The "war on poverty" began on January 8th 1964.

We've been trying the same policy for 54 years, and poverty has only gotten worse since the beginning of the "war on poverty".

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

It's time to end this half a century old failed program. It ended up creating a cycle of dependency for the people it was intended to help.

 

[ToxicShocker]

^If you take away food stamps and welfare, what do you think those people will do?

 

[Headkicktoleg]

^If you take away food stamps and welfare, what do you think those people will do?

go back to mexico

 

[Falsedawn]

The "war on poverty" began on January 8th 1964.

We've been trying the same policy for 54 years, and poverty has only gotten worse since the beginning of the "war on poverty".

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

It's time to end this half a century old failed program. It ended up creating a cycle of dependency for the people it was intended to help.

According to Donald Trump, the War on Poverty is over, and it was a great success.

Are you disagreeing with Donald Trump?

 

[Gregolian]

According to Donald Trump, the War on Poverty is over, and it was a great success.

Are you disagreeing with Donald Trump?

"Can't even call this shit a war" -Carver
"Why's that?" -Herc
"War's end" -Carver

EDIT:
I'd say I agree with him the war is over if they are stopping some of what hasn't worked for over 50 years. I would disagree that it was a success as pretty sure it only got worse during it.

 

[panamaican]

^If you take away food stamps and welfare, what do you think those people will do?

They'll decide to stop being poor.

 

[Falsedawn]

"Can't even call this shit a war" -Carver
"Why's that?" -Herc
"War's end" -Carver

EDIT:
I'd say I agree with him the war is over if they are stopping some of what hasn't worked for over 50 years. I would disagree that it was a success as pretty sure it only got worse during it.

Quite the opposite, they're pushing policy that has been shown fairly conslusively to make people poorer as well as have no effect on employment stability.

Kinda like drug testing welfare recipients, there's just not enough juice to justify the squeeze. This particular policy point is especially stupid since we're very near (or even at) full employment.

 

[Gregolian]

Quite the opposite, they're pushing policy that has been shown fairly conslusively to make people poorer as well as have no effect on employment stability.

Kinda like drug testing welfare recipients, there's just not enough juice to justify the squeeze. This particular policy point is especially stupid since we're very near (or even at) full employment.

What they need to look into if they want to get out in front of the problems with people earning below or very close to the poverty line is the fucking housing situation on the two coasts.

Seriously, I make almost $40k a year gross, and I can't afford to even THINK about buying my own place. Fucking horseshit.

 

[panamaican]

The practical solution is to remove the penalty for working, not to make working a requirement.

Demanding that those on benefits work just increases the percentage of poor people who won't be able to find a job and won't be able to qualify for benefits thus entering into real poverty. Although allowing benefit recipients to meet the work requirement with volunteering would be a fair workaround.

Reducing the penalty for working would allow people to add employment without fear of losing their benefits. Thus as their income rises, they will gradually phase out of the programs.

It's always been the right solution but it's not punitive enough to capture the attention of people who think that the poor choose poverty in order to spite the rest of us.

 

[BudKing8806]

^If you take away food stamps and welfare, what do you think those people will do?

Hopefully get a damn job and support themselves. If they choose not to do so, fuckem.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

The practical solution is to remove the penalty for working, not to make working a requirement.

Demanding that those on benefits works just increases the percentage of poor people who won't be able to find a job and won't be able to qualify for benefits thus entering into real poverty.

Reducing the penalty for working would allow people to add employment without fear of losing their benefits. Thus as their income rises, they will gradually phase out of the programs.

It's always been the right solution but it's not punitive enough to capture the attention of people who think that the poor choose poverty in order to spite the rest of us.

So the solution is to throw more money at them.Got it.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

The "war on poverty" began on January 8th 1964.

We've been trying the same policy for 54 years, and poverty has only gotten worse since the beginning of the "war on poverty".

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

It's time to end this half a century old failed program. It ended up creating a cycle of dependency for the people it was intended to help.

You're parroting typical Reaganite talking points but I'd like to give a spin to it. I don't think it created a cycle of dependency and it didn't make anything worse, but it also didn't solve anything. I find that interesting. It's similar to rehabilitation in prisons. It was a big thing back in JFK days but even Clinton kind of abandoned it and went for mass incarceration instead.
What can we take away from that? That many people simply cannot be helped? That we have no idea how to help them in a permanent way?

 

[surgeyou1]

I'm not a welfare deadbeat, so this doesn't harm me.

Omg, Trump is spending too much, omg, Trump is cutting entitlement spending.

Get an education and a job and stop trying to raise a familyof 12 on food stamps and minimumwage, problem solved.

It's so funny that Republican party has gotten votes from this dumb slogan alone for years.

Entitlement spending lol.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

The practical solution is to remove the penalty for working, not to make working a requirement.

Demanding that those on benefits work just increases the percentage of poor people who won't be able to find a job and won't be able to qualify for benefits thus entering into real poverty. Although allowing benefit recipients to meet the work requirement with volunteering would be a fair workaround.

Reducing the penalty for working would allow people to add employment without fear of losing their benefits. Thus as their income rises, they will gradually phase out of the programs.

It's always been the right solution but it's not punitive enough to capture the attention of people who think that the poor choose poverty in order to spite the rest of us.

I think a problem is that once you start doing that you inch closer to universal basic income. And universal basic income is way too expensive.

 

[panamaican]

So the solution is to throw more money at them.Got it.

Actually, I don't think you've "got it". I'm going to respond with more depth but I don't think that's what you're looking for.

Notice that this doesn't require "more money". It re-configures how you move them off the system. If you read the OP, the WH position is that people don't work because working penalized them re: their benefits. This isn't the first time this position has been raised. The problem is that entry level work that people on benefits qualify for often does not pay enough to meet the basic needs of the employees (see Walmart and their pay strategy).

Well, you can't force employers to pay more so the benefit recipients have to make the best survival choice. Going to work actually has a cost. Transportation, child care, etc. These things further reduce the purchasing power of the job relative to the benefits.

By reducing the work penalty - people receiving benefits can take on those low paying jobs without seeing a reduction their standard of living. As they move up economically, even if it's just paltry raises, then they can see be weaned off the system. Acting in this fashion facilitates their return to the workforce without making them choose between work and standard of living.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Actually, I don't think you've "got it". I'm going to respond with more depth but I don't think that's what you're looking for.

Notice that this doesn't require "more money". It re-configures how you move them off the system. If you read the OP, the WH position is that people don't work because working penalized them re: their benefits. This isn't the first time this position has been raised. The problem is that entry level work that people on benefits qualify for often does not pay enough to meet the basic needs of the employees (see Walmart and their pay strategy).

Well, you can't force employers to pay more so the benefit recipients have to make the best survival choice. Going to work actually has a cost. Transportation, child care, etc. These things further reduce the purchasing power of the job relative to the benefits.

By reducing the work penalty - people receiving benefits can take on those low paying jobs without seeing a reduction their standard of living. As they move up economically, even if it's just paltry raises, then they can see be weaned off the system. Acting in this fashion facilitates their return to the workforce without making them choose between work and standard of living.

IMO it would make more sense to reduce benefits for those who aren't working.