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.
Summary:
ReplyDeleteThis article name is “The War on Poverty After 50 Years,” by Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, I found this article off of The Heritage Foundation. This article is about how the war on poverty started, how they’re trying to fix it, and how it affects us 50 years from now. U.S. taxpayers have spent a lot of money trying to fix poverty, but the progress has been minimal.
Evaluation:
This article is useful because they break down the sections for the reader to understand easier and quicker. They show their authority by showing us the charts, and the research used to back up this information. They communicate their ideas clearly, and use simple words. This helps the reader to be able to grasp the idea and understand what they’re talking about. The other articles I looked at just told a story, or used youtube to back up their information. This article is biased because it’s not talking from the actual “poverty” section of America, but what is expected from that section.
Citation:
Rector, Robert, and Rachel Sheffield. "The War on Poverty After 50 Years." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 14 Sept. 2015. Web. 01 Mar. 2016.
In the article, “War on Poverty After 50 Years”, Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield talk about the war on poverty in the last fifty years. The welfare system fights against poverty and it basically runs itself depending on who is considered poor. Reports from the U.S. Census Bureau release talking about annual poverty. What makes the report so noticeable is that it is at half a century since President Lyndon B Johnson launches an attack on poverty. Trillions of dollars have been spend on programs against poverty. That’s triple the cost of military wars in the U.S. Despite how costly it’s been, there has been minimal progress. Since 1947 the poverty rate has only gone down by about -15% by the year 2012. To go along with that, welfare spending has been raised drastically by almost twice as much. Married couples with children that are in poverty have gone down by half as much since the year 1960. However, single parents with kids have gone up by over twice as much. Child support and other programs aren’t working as well as they should and there shouldn’t be as many single parent families as there is in the first place.
ReplyDeleteNolan, Hamilton. "Study: The War on Poverty Works." Web log post. Gawker. N.p., 10 Dec. 13. Web. 01 Mar. 2016.
ReplyDeleteIn Hamilton's writing, he argues that the war on poverty, when considered with the correct metrics, was technically successful. Poverty was reduced by the US governenments war on poverty and without government assistance programs poverty would be much more pervasive. Nolan puts the number at a 40% reduction in poverty levels during the lifetime of the war on poverty and cites the fact that poverty remained essentially stagnant during the latest recession.
I believe that the war on poverty was useful and successful. It has been notoriously difficult to get social welfare legislation passed since the New Deal. Labeling the battle against poverty a war made it something understandable and palatable to voters. Of course, the war on poverty can never be won. On the converse, if nothing is done about poverty, it becomes more pervasive. Social welfare programs do good for the country and labeling them part of a "war on poverty" helped LBJ get much needed legislation passed. The war on poverty doesn't have to be an utter failure.