Causes of Poverty in the USA

[questor]

Poverty is an important issue in all societies. It is an issue that has economic, emotional, and moral facets. While most people want to and frequently do help their fellow men through voluntary acts of kindness, many people resent being forced to pay an arbitrary amount of their income to those who may actually be able to provide better for themselves if they tried. In the US, we have quite a large tax expenditure transferred to those deemed by the government to be poor based on arbitrary statistics. It may have been noble for Robin Hood to help the poor by robbing the robber barons, but is it noble
for the US government to remove the fruits of labor from regular citizens who may be struggling to better the lives of their own families?

Means-Tested Welfare Spending: Past and Future Growth

March 7, 2001
Means-Tested Welfare Spending: Past and Future Growth
by Robert E. Rector
Testimony

Introduction

The U.S. welfare system may be defined as the total set of government programs—federal and state—that are designed explicitly to assist poor and low-income Americans.

Nearly all welfare programs are individually means-tested.1 Means-tested programs restrict eligibility for benefits to persons with non-welfare income below a certain level. Individuals with non-welfare income above a specified cutoff level may not receive aid. Thus, Food Stamp and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits are means-tested and constitute welfare, but Social Security benefits are not.

The current welfare system is highly complex, involving six departments: HHS, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, Treasury, and Education. It is not unusual for a single poor family to receive benefits from four different departments through as many as six or seven overlapping programs. For example, a family might simultaneously receive benefits from: TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Public Housing, WIC, Head Start, and the Social Service Block Grant. It is therefore important to examine welfare holistically. Examination of a single program or department in isolation is invariably misleading.

The Cost of the Welfare System

The federal government currently runs over 70 major interrelated, means-tested welfare programs, through the six departments mentioned above. State governments contribute to many federal programs, and some states operate small independent programs as well. Most state welfare spending is actually required by the federal government and thus should considered as an adjunct to the federal system. Therefore, to understand the size of the welfare state, federal and state spending must be considered together. (A list of individual welfare programs is provided in Appendix B.)





Total federal and state spending on welfare programs was $434 billion in FY 2000. Of that total, $313 billion (72 percent) came from federal funding and $121 billion (28 percent) came from state or local funds. (See Chart 1.)

Welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. On average, the annual cost of the welfare system amounts to around $5,600 in taxes from each household that paid federal income tax in 2000. Adjusting for inflation, the amount taxpayers now spend on welfare each year is greater than the value of the entire U.S. Gross National Product at the beginning of the 20th century.

The combined federal and state welfare system now includes cash aid, food, medical aid, housing aid, energy aid, jobs and training, targeted and means-tested education, social services, and urban and community development programs.2 As Table One shows, in FY2000:

Medical assistance to low income persons cost $222 billion or 51 percent of total welfare spending.
Cash, food and housing aid together cost $167 billion or 38 percent of the total.
Social Services, training, targeted education, and community development aid cost around $47 billion or 11 percent of the total.

While it can be argued that wealthy people should pay a greater tax burden, the wealth bar is being constantly lowered to include many more workers who could accurately be called middle class.
Is it ethical and moral for a society to force a transfer of income earned by a worker to another person able but unwilling to work? Would it not be much better for all that the recipient of the transfer do something in return? Can an able bodied person have pride in himself by taking another mans fruits of labor and give nothing back?
Why do we have poverty in the richest country in the world? Are we not free to seek education and training for work? Are our workplaces not among the best in the world? Do we not have newspapers, magazines, TV, Radio, free education and internet connections for all who wish to learn? How is it possible that someone living in this country could be unprepared to get a job? Could it possibly be that it may be his own fault? Could it be that his own personality traits are the problem?

Factors of Poverty; The Big five

The factors of poverty (as a social problem) that are listed here, ignorance, disease, apathy, dishonesty and dependency, are to be seen simply as conditions. No moral judgement is intended. They are not good or bad, they just are. If it is the decision of a group of people, as in a society or in a community, to reduce and remove poverty, they will have to, without value judgement, observe and identify these factors, and take action to remove them as the way to eradicate poverty. . The big five, in turn, contribute to secondary factors such as lack of markets, poor infrastructure, poor leadership, bad governance, under-employment, lack of skills, absenteeism, lack of capital, and others. Each of these are social problems, each of them are caused by one or more of the big five, and each of them contribute to the perpetuation of poverty, and their eradication is necessary for the removal of poverty.
I agree with these factors and would also add others as indicated in my thread on the Optimum State of Man. If people of good faith can't reach consensus and deal with the truth of an issue, the issue will never be solved.

[Racoon]

I've taken several sociology courses, and to me the #1 cause is.......
Getting knocked up and knocking someone up!

Sorry, but if you really insist on having a kid at 16 or 19 or even 21, or "accidently" get pregnant, you're in for one helluva rough road.

The kid will consume the mother and/or fathers resources, and many times prevent the "parents" from going to college or putting in the work necessary to get promotions.

Not saying you can't make it, and succeed, But it will definitely hinder and help keep said parents marginalized.

I see it often w/ my own eyes all the time as well.

Wrap it Up fellas! or get on the pill, or both!

As Teen Pregnancy Dropped, So Did Child Poverty (washingtonpost.com)

"People love to argue about how to prevent teen pregnancy, but sometimes we fail to shine enough light on the basic problem," Brown said. "Teen pregnancy is a major contributor to poverty, single parenthood, and limited futures for adolescents and their children."

Not every teenage mother is poor, "but bearing a child as a teenager increases the chances of a mother and child living in poverty," she said.

Adolescents who become pregnant are more likely to drop out of school, which in turn leads to lower-paying jobs. And often young mothers are less likely to marry, which means their children are raised in a home with one income. All those factors mean teenage mothers and their infants are "not finding a way out from what is often a low-income community to begin with," she said.

[questor]

You are correct, this is a major cause of poverty. Why do people do this?
Bad choices? Cultural influences? Because they get paid a welfare bounty when they have a child? No sense of personal responsibility? Take your choice.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by questor

You are correct, this is a major cause of poverty. Why do people do this?
Bad choices? Cultural influences? Because they get paid a welfare bounty when they have a child? No sense of personal responsibility? Take your choice.

Could also have something to do with millenia of evolution.


When you touched yourself for the first time and realized it felt good, was it due to the "welfare bounty?"



Bigot.

[questor]

Topics like this need to be seriously discussed by rational people with a knowledge of the facts. After all, 434 billion dollars in welfare expenses is not chump change.
People were quite concerned over the Enron scandal that impinged financially on so many investors, why are we not equally concerned about this monster expense which may have imperfections in its delivery that would dwarf the losses of Enron, and they occur every year. We cannot close our eyes to the built-in inefficiency of big government and its many failures. We cannot expect ever higher taxes to compensate for absolute mismanagement and fraud in the government.
In another thread I discussed the differences in brain ''wiring'' in different individuals.
The characteristics of the right brain thinkers are:
Intuitive

Responds to demonstrated instructions
Problem solves with hunches, looking for patterns and configurations ****
Looks at similarities
Is fluid and spontaneous
Prefers elusive, uncertain information ****
Prefers drawing and manipulating objects
Prefers open ended questions ****
Free with feelings
Prefers collegial authority structures
Draws on unbounded qualitative patterns that are not organized into sequences, but that cluster around images ****
Right Brain and Left Brain Characteristics

I would not consider these the qualities to look for in a person serving in a leadership capacity. To the above traits, I would add :
Has trouble understanding cause and effect
has trouble interpreting data.
I would not look to these people to understand or help in the fight against ignorance and poverty. They are part of the problem, not the solution.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by questor

They are part of the problem, not the solution.

Here we go again...<sigh>

Do you honestly believe that right-brained people are part of the problem any more so than left-brained people?

[Ganoderma]

i would agree with the child thing. I am from a western country and prefer to have children later once house and job all all worked out (financially -ok-), my wife being asian is more interested in have a child early as they believe it is unhealthy, for bot mother and child, to wait til your over 30 (shes 29). which we but heads a bit on, but we basically agree, buy house then have baby.

i too, have seen many friends have early kids and they are quite simply, not doing good in life...financially. but infinite has it right..sex feels good....whatcha gonna do?

Another thing i would say makes people do poorly financially is their inability to deal with their reality. Many people are very sensitive and not very adaptable (mentally) and therefor cannot do things like get fired, live in high crime areas etc. they feel bad, depressed, sad whatever...and that can very seriously affect their work and social lives....many people will also rely on other things like drugs (especially alcohol) and things to help out, which obviously has their drawbacks.

i think our society ("Western") is really not a flexible and accepting one, and if your "out of the box", then you are really OUT of the box. good examples are are people who are gay, religious or foreign race may have more problems JUST because of people not accepting that part of them. i don't think those problems are a thing of the past, i still see it....in canada, america and here in taiwan. i also see people here getting looked down on their financial/business type goals. one person may have an idea for the company, the boss hates it and holds a "grudge".......thus preventing them from moving up, which is needed as ones family grows.

i don't buy the "they are too lazy to work" argument. sure, some are definitely too lazy to earn their meals and probably don't deserve social assistance.....BUT looking at how many there are that need assistance i think there is more of a social and economic problem than a laziness problem. and if that big a percent of any given country is truly lazy....there may be a bigger problem than just the economy.

[questor]

Ganoderma, you must be aware that many gay people, sensitive people, and foreign people do quite well here in America. There are not many lazy, dishonest, uneducated, unambitious people who do well. These contribute to the permanent underclass.

[Ganoderma]

yes i know that, my point is those people often have far more "barriers" to deal with than the typical straight white "normal" dude. which with many people can be quite devastating reflecting in their habits and work..or more. some friends of mine are social workers and it become quite obvious there are certain people who become addicted to substances, cant work, break down etc. thats all i was getting at.


"There are not many lazy, dishonest, uneducated, unambitious people who do well. These contribute to the permanent underclass."

I agree, my question is if so many of the welfare collectors are (not saying they are) these types of people, i think the country is in a bit of trouble...WHY are so many of them that lazy and unmotivated? welfare is one of the "solutions", but whats the problem? should we blame the schools? government? society? the individual? or stop blaming?

[questor]

Freeztar, I truly believe that whatever part of the brain generates political correctness, lack of personal responsibility, the welfare society enablers, the inability to confront truth, and the inability to understand cause and effect, causes the dichotomy in our society,with the accompanying social unrest.
For example, I have just had discussions on this site with someone who has opinions 180 degrees from mine. One of us is wrong. This is a very good example of the brain ''wiring'' I have written about. Our brains are obviously wired differently because he can't understand my position even though I have provided data for him and explained my positions thoroughly. It can also be said I cannot understand his position, but he has not explained it or given any data for support.