Political approahes to the problem of poverty

[AENeuman]

what are the political approaches to solving the problems of poverty in America?

it seems right now both Democrats and Republicans take a liberal approach. they both support the government spending money on services for the poor. while it does very little to get rid of poverty, it makes being poor less miserable. this approach also gets citizens off the hook. the problem of poverty can be put on the government and its inability to handle the problem.

so, what are your other (realistic) approaches to fixing the problem poverty? I'm particularly interested what the Conservative response would be. On one hand there is laissez-faire notions of winners and losers, survival of the fittest, on the other there is the strong Christian aspect of blessed are the poor.

finally i guess the assumption that poverty is a problem should be addressed. i know that for the most part the poor are marginalized. this keeps "them" from interfering with "us." i think given the choice most people would prefer to live with their own (be it religious, race, age, etc). also, a lot of money is made off the poor, and people willing to work for low wages is essential for our economy.

[molson]

Eliminate illegal immigration.

Not possible for the US - but great for Sweden, Norway, etc.

[SportsDino]

What you really need is a strong middle class, and you can't create that through simply redistributing the wealth to artificially bring it about.

To me that means politically:

Less government support of big business. It obviously is failing, the largest corporations with the most government injections are right now falling apart at the seems.

Small businesses and professionals are the heart of a growing economy, not massive hedge funds or old money. Some small businesses should become tommorrows big businesses that employ thousands (or tens of thousands).

I'm also a big believer in the 'you give a man a fish he eats for a day, you teach him how to fish he eats for a lifetime'... but in some cases you are going to have social safety net spending. The problem is it cannot be for EVERYONE, you can't have otherwise productive members of society being completely paid for by any government (local or federal)... and you cannot support high standard of living like that either.

To a degree there will probably always be poverty, what we need to avoid at the moment is otherwise valuable citizens being dragged down there because of others' monumental mistakes. Right now I think the incentives we got are all pointing us towards widespread weakness in the economy.

[st.cronin]

Redefine poverty so that nobody is actually poor.

[BrianD]

If we eliminate poverty, inflation will drive prices of everything up to a point where we will again have poverty. It sucks for those who are poor, but the only way to get rid of it is socialism...which has its own problems.

[CamEdwards]

What you really need is a strong middle class, and you can't create that through simply redistributing the wealth to artificially bring it about.

To me that means politically:

Less government support of big business. It obviously is failing, the largest corporations with the most government injections are right now falling apart at the seems.

Small businesses and professionals are the heart of a growing economy, not massive hedge funds or old money. Some small businesses should become tommorrows big businesses that employ thousands (or tens of thousands).

I'm also a big believer in the 'you give a man a fish he eats for a day, you teach him how to fish he eats for a lifetime'... but in some cases you are going to have social safety net spending. The problem is it cannot be for EVERYONE, you can't have otherwise productive members of society being completely paid for by any government (local or federal)... and you cannot support high standard of living like that either.

To a degree there will probably always be poverty, what we need to avoid at the moment is otherwise valuable citizens being dragged down there because of others' monumental mistakes. Right now I think the incentives we got are all pointing us towards widespread weakness in the economy.

I agree. I think the hard sell for conservatives is the belief (at least for me) that even the safety net should come with some responsibilities, or it should be such a low level of substinence that there is no impetus to remain on the dole. Conversely though (and this is where I have a feeling conservatives haven't done nearly enough) the opportunity to rise out of poverty need to be there for anyone willing to invest the time, energy, and sweat to do so.

[JPhillips]

A couple quick points. First, the real problem is children. I'd rather not pay parents for not working, but I'm willing to err some there to see a child have a better life. Second, while the Great Society programs had problems they also cut the poverty rate in half during LBJ's term.If you look at a graph the steep drop in poverty from 1960-1965 or so is pretty incredible.

[Warhammer]

A couple quick points. First, the real problem is children. I'd rather not pay parents for not working, but I'm willing to err some there to see a child have a better life. Second, while the Great Society programs had problems they also cut the poverty rate in half during LBJ's term.If you look at a graph the steep drop in poverty from 1960-1965 or so is pretty incredible.


But you could also argue that the Great Society programs took some time to be felt as far as its inflationary effects. Also, the era of 1960-63 predates Great Society. So was it actually Johnson's programs, or were things getting better on their own?

[Galaxy]

What you consider the real reasons for why people are in poverty in America?

[JPhillips]

But you could also argue that the Great Society programs took some time to be felt as far as its inflationary effects. Also, the era of 1960-63 predates Great Society. So was it actually Johnson's programs, or were things getting better on their own?

There were problems with Great Society programs, but they also seem to have worked to reduce the poverty rate.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Poverty_59_to_05.png/800px-Poverty_59_to_05.png

[CU Tiger]

Ship all "those people" (and by "those" I mean "poor") to a small island in the Pacific. Tell them it is a free vacation or some shit they will come running. Always looking for something for nothing.

Once they are gone we have eliminated the poor problem. Since only middle class and rich people are left and they have genetically superior off spring there will never again be poverty in America.

[/dripping of sarcasm]

[Neon_Chaos]

Eliminate illegal immigration.

Not possible for the US - but great for Sweden, Norway, etc.

But who's going to do lanscaping? Dish-washing? The picking of fruit!?

[gstelmack]

The US is already well set up for economic mobility, with people moving up and down the economic ladder on a regular basis. It just takes some work and applying yourself.

The real issue is with parents who don't value education holding back their kids, as that is the #1 way you dig yourself out of the poverty hole.

[chesapeake]

Strengthening the system of public education, including adult education and retraining. It is not a quick fix, but it works.

[Celeval]

The real issue is with parents who don't value education holding back their kids, as that is the #1 way you dig yourself out of the poverty hole.

This, I agree with.

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips, were there a change in the definition of "poverty" during that time?

[QuikSand]

If you're really looking for "something to think about" on this subject, here's your required reading:

Book : Whatever It Takes (http://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Takes-Geoffrey-Canadas-America/dp/0618569898/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226587994&sr=8-1)

Dated article from worthless tainted liberal rag (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9507E7D91030F933A15755C0A9629C8B63)

The fairly novel idea behind the Harlem Project is essentially to come to parents whose families are amidst the well-documented cycle of poverty, and basically offer them this deal: Sorry, but you (the parent) are too far gone for us to really help, but if you're willing to focus just on helping out your kids, we can try to give them all the advantages that other wealthier kids might have, and get them onto a better track.

I don't claim that this is the end of the debate. But in my mind, it might be the single most appealing approach out there in the laboratory of political ideas out there. And it's certainly possible that its central appeal might be one that could leverage some private investment elsewhere -- this doesn't have to be a function of centralized government by any means.

Worth thinking about.

[JPhillips]

From what I can gather from the census report that chart came from, no, but I'll add that I didn't find a really clear answer either.

[AENeuman]

But in my mind, it might be the single most appealing approach out there in the laboratory of political ideas out ther.

Actually, it was listening about the Harlem Project on This American Life that got me thinking about this. I think this also may be the closest to a Conservative approach.

i agree that there has to be a different mind set for the opportunities to be meaningful. In other words, the opportunities needs to be greater than the temptations, disappointments, dangers and prejudices. However, the inability of the "successful" to empathize (and even take some responsibility) with these obstacles I think prevents real solutions.

If eliminating poverty would be a bad thing, then is the liberal apporach of not fixing, but easing poverty best?

Why would putting more money in the an already dysfunctional educational system be a solution? In many cases the poorest students/schools receive the most money. Why do we think that if only the education were better all the other distractions, challenges, "role models", fears, and anger would become obsolete?

[Warhammer]

There were problems with Great Society programs, but they also seem to have worked to reduce the poverty rate.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Poverty_59_to_05.png/800px-Poverty_59_to_05.png

Great, but check your years. The core of the Great Society programs was enacted in '65. According to your chart, the downward trend in poverty numbers was evident prior to this year.

EDIT: Actually it looks like '65 could be an inflection point in the poverty rate, indicating that it might have slowed the decline in the poverty rate. Now, the trend line might not have been sustainable, but the downward trend actually corresponds more to Kennedy's tax cut than it does Great Society.

[Autumn]

The US is already well set up for economic mobility, with people moving up and down the economic ladder on a regular basis. It just takes some work and applying yourself.

This is a passionate belief of Americans, but not really borne out by evidence. I don't have the links now, but if you look you'll find that most studies have found that economic mobility is actually not that high in the U.S., certainly not as high as a good deal of other developed countries.

Which I think is a major point. I think we're so convinced that our system works to allow people to move up, that we resist changing things about our system. If we realized how ineffective it was in that sense we could probably do better.