Was the WOP really a success?

Rector, Robert, and Rachel Sheffield. “The War on Poverty After 50 Years.” The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 15 Sep. 2014. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.

     The article "The War on Poverty After 50 Years", by Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, really caught my attention because it was the first one i found that had a pretty negative attitude towards the whole "War on Poverty". They start off saying that taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs- nearly THREE TIMES the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. And with all that money spent, the percentage of people in poverty has only decreased by 5%. They go on to explain this "Welfare-Poverty Paradox", which basically shows the inverse relationship between the percentage of poor people and the amount of money spent on welfare spending. That now, in today's society, we depend on the government welfare more than ever. They feel as if the War of Poverty generated this pattern of government dependence, and will lead to even greater assistance in the future. They prove this claim by showing that the government spends 16 times more on assistance programs today than when it first began. One of the writer's main points is that, overall, this War on Poverty was not a success. Primarily because it didn't fulfill its main goal, which was to strike at "the cause, not just the consequences of poverty"(LBJ). Johnson's goal was not to create this ever increasing welfare that would be doled out onto this ever-enlarging "poor". His goal was to offer opportunity, to create a more self-sufficient society that doesn't depend on the government to sustain. Proving that, although it did increase the standard of living for people in poverty, ultimately it failed to accomplish its main goal, which is self-sufficiency. 

    After writing that summary, i realize that they seem to have a sort of "republican" attitude towards the situation, Even though i believe that welfare is a good thing, this article kind of made me believe otherwise. The authors showed plenty of charts that backed up their claims, for instance by showing that the government spend $943 billion in 2013 on these programs alone- plus just showing the fact that 1 out of 6 people are receiving this assistance, when really only about 32% of those people need it. Even with this bias attitude toward the poor, i cant help but to agree with them(They dont really give any perspective of the poor now that i think about it). I feel the best solution is to put a cap on the welfare that that the government just seems to be "doling" out. I see their point, yes it may seem like it has gotten better, "but really" it just putting the country in more debt. 

War On Poverty, 50 years later

Walsh, Kenneth T. “The War on Poverty: 50 years later.” U.S. News and World Report. U.S. News

            and World Report LP. 6 Jan. 2014. Web. 29 Feb. 2016

 

Upon the 50^th anniversary of Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidential address to the Union, and his claim to “unconditional war on poverty,” Kenneth T. Walsh goes over what this war proclaimed and if it has failed or not. With a few examples on what the war on poverty is and the programs that pertain to it, Walsh proclaims that, “Overall, liberals and conservatives are still debating whether Johnson's War on Poverty was a success or a failure. Actually, it was both.” Walsh brings forward facts of the past and today, proving his point by stating that the War failed in that we still have poverty, yet we have won because poverty rates have receded from 19 percent and is in a range of 11 to 15 percent. In the end, the overall outcome was “the end of welfare as we know it,” as Bill Clinton ends it while he was in office in 1996.

I found this article very informative. It was interesting seeing the different methods he used to convey his message. Using quotes from many of the interviews that Lyndon B. Johnson had, as well as past and present records of the poverty rates, Walsh shows how the War on Poverty was a success and a failure. He uses fact, the past and present poverty rates, to show that while yes, the war on poverty didn’t succeed, it still did something—and that was keep the poverty rate from going over 19 percent. He even states that poverty bounces back between 11 percent and 15 percent. So while it wasn’t a success it still helped at some degree. Walsh compares Johnson’s presidency with Obama’s, commenting what Obama could have done differently to help win over Congress to help with his plans to help the poverty. I think he uses this comparing method to show that Obama could have been successful with adding on to the successes of the War on Poverty if he had been less “aloof and disengaged with Congress.”

The on going war on poverty

Dylan Matthews. “Everything you need to know about the war on poverty.” The Washington Post.  The Washington Post Company, 8 Jan. 2014. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.

The article “ Everything you need to know about the war on poverty” discusses every aspect of the “war on poverty” concept in detail. The author covers the history of the start and then, throughout the article, he ties it back to present day. Using multiple charts and graphs, the author points out that according to the data, poverty may seem to have decreased after declaring the war on poverty. Many may assume that the poverty population has dropped due to the numerous acts established in hopes of providing free important needs that may not always be available to the poor. However, as mentioned, this data only makes it appear as if the population decreased. The author then goes on to conclude that poverty still exist. The conditions of living do not simply go away just for these few acts. The elderly, young, and single parents still need help in other ways that the author believes can be provided through the increase of taxes on some of the population, but also cutting taxes on some of the classes.

The article obtains authority for its variety of statistics and data provided. The data shown in presented through percentages, graphs, and dates. It also covers data from the year that the “war on poverty” was declared to the past couple years. Tax transfers, population numbers (by the millions), and SPM ratings presented in charts give the viewers a visual to witness the impact of the acts, established in the late 1960’s, on the poverty data. This visual ensures that the reader will sense the emphasis on how well the acts helped the poverty in America. Not only a visual, but a sense of trust in the author for the research done and the reassurance that the author is an expert on the concept.

War on Poverty, yo

Rector, Robert, and Rachel Sheffield. "The War on Poverty After 50 Years." The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 14 Sept. 2014. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.

The War on Poverty After 50 Years provides background information on President Lyndon B. Johnson’s goal to reduce the cause of poverty. In 1964 president Johnson in his state of the union address stated, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” Although, data has shown has that this attempted war has actually been stagnant. In the 52 years since this declaration America has spent over 22 trillion dollars on anti-poverty programs (not including Social Security and Medicare). Compared to the definition of poverty back then, today’s imagination of being homeless and hungry is inaccurate as Rector and Sheffield bring to attention, “Only 9.5 percent of the poor live in mobile homes or trailers; 49.5 percent live in separate single-family houses or townhouses, and 40 percent live in apartments.” The poor in America based on data has also shown that many poor families have cable, air conditioning, a car, internet access etc. Many people argue that because the living conditions of the poor have gotten better, the War on Poverty has been a success. Although, this is not true according to the article because it does not target President Johnson’s original goal which was to prevent poverty and promote self-sufficiency. Because of the tremendous increase in welfare programs, the poor rely heavily on these government “handouts.” These welfare programs promote not being married as well. This leads to a dangerous trend of the replacement of husbands with welfare and the increase of single mothers. In conclusion, The War on Poverty has been extremely unsuccessful.

            Robert Rector is a senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation. Rachel Sheffield is a political analyst who works for DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society. This information is useful because it is important to know of the issues regarding America and poverty. These issues directly affect every citizen whether you are poor or not. The authors of this article have not firsthand experienced poverty but they have done extensive research on the subject. This article communicates its main idea by providing data and explanation for the failure of President Johnson’s plan. In turn it highlights the real problem, welfare. Although, I believe this article carefully chose the numbers it did and did not include to exaggerate the idea that America’s poor lives in comfort.

War on Poverty

Coontz, Stephanie. "Why 'war on Poverty' Not over." CNN. Cable News Network, 6 Jan. 2014. Web. 29 Feb. 2016. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/coontz-war-on-poverty/index.html>.

       In this article by Stephanie Coontz she talks about how in his State of the Union address President Lyndon B. Johnson declared "unconditional war on poverty." The years after that was filled with all kinds of new reforms, like new health insurance, food stamps, increased social security benefits, supported pregnant women and infants, job programs for teenagers, and work study for college students. Then the article goes on to talk about when Richard Nixon was President in the 1970’s. He worked more on the food stamp program, added a cost of living to social security, and also created programs for disabled adults and children. In 1988 when Ronald Reagan said the war was over, and the “poverty won”. She says that poverty would have been fixed even better if they would have not given up on the war on poverty, but then she goes on to talk about how well the statistics has risen and how much better people in poverty are doing so it is a bit of a contradiction. She never really says where she got her information.  She flops back and forth from poverty is and is not a problem, and then back over to we are doing good as a county to we are screwed. Then in the final paragraph she refers to how the UK fixed there child poverty problem, I thought it was extremely random and kind of made me question her credibility, because I felt like she just throw that in there to save her article. 

The War

(I tried posting as a comment but the format gets all fucked up)

Rector, Robert, and Rachel Sheffield. “The War on Poverty After 50 Years.” The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 15 Sep. 2014. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.

Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield’s article features the background of The War on Poverty, reveals statistics about living conditions of those living in poverty, and how single parent households are affected by poverty. I chose this article because it summarizes what The War was and is all about and it shares statistics that I’ve never read before. A graph featured reads that poverty has decreased since The War started. But LBJ meant for The War to cure poverty and not just temporarily decrease it.

This article is useful because it changes perspective on how we view and interpret poverty. For example, “96% of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food”, “more than half of poor families with children have a video game system”, and “only 4% of poor persons become temporarily homeless”. I find it hard for this article to be more biased than others because Rector is a leading authority on poverty, welfare programs, and immigration in America for thirty years while Sheffield focuses on welfare, marriage and family, and education as a policy analyst. These authors should be trying to persuade why people in poverty need our help but instead they are making it seem like the poor life isn’t as bad as we think it to be. I find that interesting. 

War on Poverty

Matthews, Dylan. “Everything You Need to Know About the War On Poverty.”

 The Washington  Post. The Washington Post. 8 January 2014. Web. 28

February 2016.

This article by Dylan Matthews is an informational article that gives background and statistics about “The War on Poverty”. The first section gives a brief explanation stating that this “war” started around 50 years ago by Lyndon Johnson, gives a brief definition and states that either you really thought this thing was great or it was a catastrophe. The next section gives an overview of the programs started in this movement such as; The Social Security Amendments of 1965, Food Stamp Act of 1964, The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and The Elementary and Secondary Education Act put into law in 1965. The third section talks about why this war was started when it was. The fourth section shows that technically this “war” isn’t over due to the fact that a lot of the programs are still in actions. The fifth section shows a graph in which it doesn’t look like poverty has been reduced but explains that through the programs initiated it actually has been reduced. The sixth section talks about that due to the official poverty rate people don’t see the good this movement had. Finally the seventh and last section explains what the people of america can do to make more of an impact, to tip the scales and to ultimately win the "War on Poverty"

First of all I know a lot of people will might use this article, and for a while I looked for another one but this one had what seemed like the least bias and the most statistics and historical back ground. While this “war” has its downsides which this article does little to shine light on, and the bias is obviously skewed toward a more positive light, it does a good job at giving a basic understanding on the reasoning, time line, programs and overall impact of “The War on Poverty". Through all of my research this article gave the most information and was the most helpful.

Some witty title

In "RIP the middle class:1946-2013" McClelland say the middle class has been getting smaller over the years.  Back in the day it was easy to jump from high school into a job that can actually support you and a house and such. Now things are much different. The majority of jobs now require some college and degrees. Before you could drop out and still make bank, but now its all competitive and they pay is usually low enough that you cant afford much anymore. As the times grow so should people. We have to realize that we have to work harder to achieve " the American dream". You have to go through with school, work hard for grades so you can get into a good college, then bust it to make it through college so you can get a better job with good pay. Its not as easy as It once was.

In “Nickel, and Dimed” by Barbara Echrenreich  she proves that hard work is worth it. Working hard can get you to high places. She worked as a maid for 25 bucks and the people she worked for kept more than half of what she made. She stuck it out and ended up starting her own business. Something to show for her hard work. You have to work hard and never give up.

*Insert a clever title with a pun*

Edward McCelland expresses his concern for the decrease in opportunities for the middle class which in turn, causes a huge shrink in the middle class, in RIP, the Middle Class: 1946-2013. McCelland gives the reader a background of this continuing problem. He asserts that back in the 70’s one could easily drop out of high school and obtain a high paying job in the field of steel working and auto mechanics. To put this into perspective he claims, “I’ve always believed that the 70’s are remembered as the Decade That Taste Forgot because they were a time when people without culture or education had the money to not only indulge their passions, but flaunt them in front of the entire nation” (550). This is a sharp contrast to today’s economy where technological advances has taken over what used to be thousands of job opportunities. McCelland concludes that it is inevitably the governments fault for the collapsing middle class. The American Dream is no longer accessible to the majority of Americans now due to how much competition there now is entering the work force. Once now needs extensive schooling in order to receive the same job that you could get with none years ago. Hard work does not guarantee success anymore.

From Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich tells the story of a desperate maid who works so hard for little pay. The company takes advantage of their desperate employees and it is shown as the maid questions the fairness of the system, “The Maids charges $25 per person-hour. The company gets $25 and we get $6.65 for each hour we work?” (2). Through this story it is shown how the America Dream is not usually what one expects. The labor performed by the maid is hard on her body and customers are demanding. The company also takes great advantage of them, not giving them the pay or lunch breaks they rightfully deserve. 

Comment- american dream

The first article was, “From Nickel and Dimed”, by Barbara Ehrenreich. She shares the troubling story of a maid who has come to America to have the “American Dream”. She works extremely long hours, for very little pay. The conditions of her job are not well either she gets very short breaks and has to clean up other people’s mess. She works for a women named Tammy, and it is somewhat ironic that Tammy used to be a maid now she owns her own maid company. If you work hard enough day in and day out you can get the “American Dream” just like Tammy you can go from the bottom of the ladder like just a maid to the top by owning your own business.

The next article was “RIP, the Middle Class”, by Edward McClelland he talks about how the middle class is disappearing and he says that it is the government’s fault. In the article he states “The United States will never again be as wealthy as it was in the 1950s and ’60s. Never again will 18-year-olds graduate directly from high school to jobs that pay well enough to buy a house and support a family.” He brings to attention that people need a higher form of education to get a better job, but sometimes even with a college degree you are not guaranteed a job. I think it goes back to the notion about the American Dream and having to work extremely hard to achieve that. 

Middle Class & Poverty

McClelland writes in “RIP, The Middle Class: 1946-2013” that the middle class is growing smaller and smaller. It is happening slowly but surely. The middle class is separating and now people are only being labeled as rich or poor. He claims that it is easy to make money. Anyone can buy whatever they want whenever they want with or without a degree. The only thing you need this day in age is a job. I disagree with this statement because I think poverty has existed since the beginning of civilization. People have struggle from back then all the way up until today. I also believe that the middle class remains and is still the largest class there is. Yes, people can afford the things they need to live. However, that doesn’t mean they can just buy whatever they want. Education is very important and it plays a key role in the jobs that people everywhere have. I believe that this has always been the case. In the passage “Nickel, and Dimed” by Barbara Echrenreich I got the idea that you could make something out of nothing. Tammy started off as a maid and now manages her own company. It makes me feel as if you can do what it is you do without any regrets. She worked as a maid and had to develop her skills from ground up. It's important to know that you get what you put in. Your results and success should match the work you do in order to reach that level. McClelland states that it's the government's fault but I think that they should only be responsible to some degree. Yes, the government should help keep the citizens on their feet but people shouldn't rely only on them for everything,

Poverty + The Middle Class

(I’m posting this as a blog because I don’t think it would be a very good comment) Ha.

            In the story “RIP, The Middle Class: 1946-2013” written by McClelland, the author is basically stating that the middle class is slowly but surly diminishing and that before we know it there will only be a rich and a poor social class, no in-between. He claims that during that time, it was just so much easier to make money. You could be a high school drop-out and still be able to take care of yourself stably, buy what ever you felt you needed and/or wanted with really no problems at all, you just needed a job, and they were incredibly easy to find back then. McClelland get to his point “The shrinking of the middle class is not a failure of capitalism. It’s a failure of Government.” Nowadays, if an American wants to have the ability to purchase what ever the please when ever they want it, then you’re required to go to college for at LEAST 4 years and even with that, you’re still not guarantied it (Job, house, money, etc.).

           

            Do you believe that if people work hard enough, they will achieve success? Oh yes. I’ve seen it happen multiple times right before my eyes, but that’s besides the point. I say this because while reading “Nickel, and Dimed” by Barbara Echrenreich character: Tammy (as said in the passage), was once a maid herself, and now she’s the manager of her company! Now I’m not saying that because Tammy did it, you can do it. No. I’m saying that it’s obviously a ability that a LOT of people have. Anyways, I feel that the main point of the story was that you can find happiness in a place that creates no happiness, and also that positivity throughout your day (or week in this case), can be overall, rewarding. Kind of like a “I glad I did it” type of way. All in all poverty doesn’t generate sadness, its what you make it, and if you can make it good then things will be just fine.