The Census Bureau will be releasing new poverty-rate numbers on Thursday and the numbers are expected to show a big move in the wrong direction. Much of the coverage will be on how much the poverty rate increases, with 15 percent being a likely amount according to some estimate. There also will be lots of discussion about the political implications, as this Associated Press story illustrates.
The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty. Census figures for 2009 — the recession-ravaged first year of the Democrat’s presidency — are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings. It’s unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase — from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent — would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.
But the real story should be the degree to which the federal government’s War on Poverty has been a complete failure. Taxpayers have poured trillions of dollars into means-tested programs, yet the data show no positive results. Indeed, it’s quite likely that the programs have backfired. As shown in the chart, Census Bureau data reveal that the poverty rate was steadily falling in the 1950s and early 1960s, but then stagnated once the War on Poverty began. It’s possible that there are alternative and/or additional explanations for this shocking development, but government intervention may be encouraging poverty by making indolence more attractive than work.
[…] his main message (similar to this video and illustrated by this chart) is that the welfare state hurts the poor even more than it hurts […]
[…] his main message (similar to this video and illustrated by this chart) is that the welfare state hurts the poor even more than it hurts […]
[…] his main message (similar to this video and illustrated by this chart) is that the welfare state hurts the poor even more than it hurts […]
[…] his main message (similar to this video and illustrated by this chart) is that the welfare state hurts the poor even more than it hurts […]
[…] his main message (similar to this video and illustrated by this chart) is that the welfare state hurts the poor even more than it hurts […]
[…] The federal government launched a multi-trillion dollar War on Poverty, and the poverty rate, which had been consistently falling, now is stuck around 13 percent. […]
[…] The federal government launched a multi-trillion dollar War on Poverty and the poverty rate, which had been consistently falling, now is stuck around 13 percent. […]
[…] In other words, I don’t like the welfare state because I care about both the best interests of taxpayers and also about the best interests of poor people. And this is why I repeatedly share data showing how American was making impressive progress against poverty before there was a welfare state. But once the federal government declared a “War on Poverty,” the poverty rate stopped falling. […]
[…] the way, I can’t resist pointing out that this chart shows how the poverty rate was declining until the so-called War on Poverty started in the […]
[…] the way, I can’t resist pointing out that this chart shows how the poverty rate was declining until the so-called War on Poverty started in the […]
[…] in 2010, I shared a chart based on far more limited data to show the poverty rate consistently falling after World War […]
[…] in 2010, I shared a chart based on far more limited data to show the poverty rate consistently falling after World War […]
[…] have spent trillions of dollars on means-tested programs, yet the data shows virtually no change in the poverty rate since the 1960s. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act to […]
[…] programs are supposed to help alleviate poverty and help those who need it; not sustain a certain poverty level. The assumption that it is necessary to spend more on public assistance when there is higher […]
Okay, I have bad news. Your table is not accurate. I work with Census data all the time and I could not find any Poverty data prior to 1959. Because it doesn’t exist. The Census did not issue Poverty figures prior to 1960. I don’t know who made up the data on 1950-1958 Poverty Rates, but it did not come from the Census Bureau.
[…] his main message (similar to this video and illustrated by this chart) is that the welfare state hurts the poor even more than it hurts […]
[…] his main message (similar to this video and illustrated by this chart) is that the welfare state hurts the poor even more than it hurts […]
[…] several occasions, I’ve observed that the poverty rate in America was steadily falling, but that progress came to a halt in the mid-1960s when the government declared a War on […]
[…] several occasions, I’ve observed that the poverty rate in America was steadily falling, but that progress came to a halt in the mid-1960s when the government declared a War on […]
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
When Reality Does Not Agree With Liberal Policies Liberals: Deny, Change Subject, Demonize Opponents Anything But Admit Their Promise of Utopia Delivers Hell
[…] includes economist Dan Mitchell’s chart, which illustrates how US poverty rates were falling steadily until LBJ’s big-government […]
[…] Let’s not forget that the poverty rate was falling steadily before the federal government declared a “War on […]
[…] Let’s not forget that the poverty rate was falling steadily before the federal government declared a “War on […]
[…] Let’s not forget that the poverty rate was falling steadily before the federal government declared a “War on […]
[…] Let’s not forget that the poverty rate was falling steadily before the federal government declared a “War on […]
Why does your graph show the “War on Poverty” as beginning in 1968? The first Great Society programs were launched in 1964. If you look at 1964 as the beginning of the War on Poverty, you see a very large drop until 1969. Only the drop from 1950 to 1956 is comparable, and we’ve seen no comparable drop since 1969. Of course if you randomly choose to start in 1968 it looks like nothing happened.
[…] pour 21,9% du PIB en moyenne pour l’ensemble des pays de l'OCDE. Et comme il semble évident que la redistribution de l’État sape les progrès réalisés dans la lutte contre la pauvreté, je souhaiterais en réalité qu’il y ait un grand […]
[…] to an average of 21.9 percent of GDP for all OECD nations. And since there’s strong evidence that government redistribution undermines progress in the fight against poverty, I actually wish there was a big gap between America and other […]
[…] average of 21.9 percent of GDP for all OECD nations. And since there’s strong evidence that government redistribution undermines progress in the fight against poverty, I actually wish there was a big gap between America and other […]
[…] to an average of 21.9 percent of GDP for all OECD nations. And since there’s strong evidence that government redistribution undermines progress in the fight against poverty, I actually wish there was a big gap between America and other […]
[…] average of 21.9 percent of GDP for all OECD nations. And since there’s strong evidence that government redistribution undermines progress in the fight against poverty, I actually wish there was a big gap between America and other […]
[…] The moral of the story: Big government is bad for the poor. […]
[…] his main message (similar to this video and illustrated by this chart) is that the welfare state hurts the poor even more than it hurts […]
[…] his main message (similar to this video and illustrated by this chart) is that the welfare state hurts the poor even more than it hurts […]
[…] The moral of the story: Big government is bad for the poor. […]
[…] The moral of the story: Big government is bad for the poor. […]
[…] Here’s where I think he lets hope triumph over experience. What makes him think that the federal government is capable of successfully creating and operating “mobility programs”? It’s been operating dozens of such programs and they’ve all failed. […]
[…] also linked to a previous post of his from 2010, which contains this […]
[…] Even though the War on Poverty seems to have put an end to the progress we were making (see this remarkable chart), Krugman equates spending money with […]
[…] Check out this chart, which I first posted back last September. […]
[…] P.S. I shouldn’t have to write this (especially since I’ve already explained my socially conservative inclinations), but allow me to deflect foolish attacks by saying that being against federal programs to subsidize marriage doesn’t make me anti-marriage. I like softball, apple pie, chocolate milk shakes, and the Georgia Bulldogs football team, but I don’t want the federal government subsidies for any of those things either. Indeed, I fear subsidies and handouts will have a negative impact. […]
[…] P.S. I shouldn’t have to write this (especially since I’ve already explained my socially conservative inclinations), but allow me to deflect foolish attacks by saying that being against federal programs to subsidize marriage doesn’t make me anti-marriage. I like softball, apple pie, chocolate milk shakes, and the Georgia Bulldogs football team, but I don’t want the federal government subsidies for any of those things either. Indeed, I fear subsidies and handouts will have a negative impact. […]
[…] once the federal government got involved in the mid-1960s, the good news evaporated. Indeed, the poverty rate has basically stagnated for the past 40-plus years, usually hovering around 13 percent depending on economic […]
The economic theories of John Maynard Keynes are so gay.
[…] I’m not a big fan of welfare programs, in part because I sympathize with taxpayers (check out these outrageous examples of waste) but mostly because redistribution programs subsidize poverty and trap people in lives of despair. […]
[…] I’m not a big fan of welfare programs, in part because I sympathize with taxpayers (check out these outrageous examples of waste) but mostly because redistribution programs subsidize poverty and trap people in lives of despair. […]
[…] being, though, my primary concern is the way redistribution saps the spirit of self reliance and traps people into lives of dependency. That’s the very first point I make in this debate on […]
[…] being, though, my primary concern is the way redistribution saps the spirit of self reliance and traps people into lives of dependency. That’s the very first point I make in this debate on […]
[…] I’ve written several times about the foolish War on Drugs, which has been about as misguided and ineffective as the government’s War on Poverty. […]
[…] once the federal government got involved in the mid-1960s, the good news evaporated. Indeed, the poverty rate has basically stagnated for the past 40-plus years, usually hovering around 13 percent depending on economic […]
[…] once the federal government got involved in the mid-1960s, the good news evaporated. Indeed, the poverty rate has basically stagnated for the past 40-plus years, usually hovering around 13 percent depending on economic […]
[…] once the federal government got involved in the mid-1960s, the good news evaporated. Indeed, the poverty rate has basically stagnated for the past 40-plus years, usually hovering around 13 percent depending on economic […]
[…] once the federal government got involved in the mid-1960s, the good news evaporated. Indeed, the poverty rate has basically stagnated for the past 40-plus years, usually hovering around 13 percent depending on economic […]
my only criticism here is that, for example, leftists like to point to the slowing of job losses in the economy as a sign of the Obama stimulus’s success; conservatives counter by saying that of course the marginal unemployment rate will naturally slow on its own as more and more people become unemployed; otherwise, 100% of the population would eventually be unemployed.
so couldn’t it be said that the poverty level in this country had fallen to the point that it couldn’t really go any lower, and thus is not the fault of the War on Poverty? I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. what do you all think?
[…] The real tragedy of the welfare state, however, goes well beyond the fiscal burden. The human toll is far worse, as redistribution subsidizes dysfunctional behavior and traps people in dependency. […]
[…] federal government, which shouldn’t have any role in the field of income redistribution, has squandered trillions of dollars on dozens of means-tested programs. And they’ve arguably made matters […]
[…] federal government, which shouldn’t have any role in the field of income redistribution, has squandered trillions of dollars on dozens of means-tested programs. And they’ve arguably made matters […]
[…] cited from the study. Regardless of how the poverty rate is defined, the massive increase in federal spending on anti-poverty programs has been a terrible failure. Trillions of dollars have been spent since the “War on Poverty” began, but the poverty […]
[…] I’ve written before about how the War on Poverty has likely resulted in more poverty. […]
[…] interesting, the report notes that reducing social welfare spending and reducing the burden of the bureaucracy are the two most effective ways of lowering red ink. The […]
[…] interesting, the report notes that reducing social welfare spending and reducing the burden of the bureaucracy are the two most effective ways of lowering red ink. The […]
[…] interesting, the report notes that reducing social welfare spending and reducing the burden of the bureaucracy are the two most effective ways of lowering red ink. The […]
[…] interesting, the report notes that reducing social welfare spending and reducing the burden of the bureaucracy are the two most effective ways of lowering red ink. The […]
[…] interesting, the report notes that reducing social welfare spending and reducing the burden of the bureaucracy are the two most effective ways of lowering red ink. The […]
[…] Except, we’ve been doing that. We declared war on poverty in 1964, and since then we’ve spent trillions of dollars to remedy the poverty issue. And yet, as of 2010, the poverty rates are going to be right at were they were when we declared that war, at about 15%. See the chart here. […]
[…] https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/does-the-war-on-poverty-fight-destitution-or-subsidi… […]