Mickey Kaus reacts to reporting on new poverty numbers out in the US;
Crude initial reaction: The purpose of welfare reform wasn't to lower the poverty rate. It was to move people from welfare to work--out of an isolated, non-working subculture that had all sorts of bad social effects (fatherless families, crime, segregation, etc.). If welfare reform could have done that with a small increase in the poverty rate, that would have been a price worth paying. If reform had accomplished this goal--a near-60% reduction in the families getting welfare**--with no increase in the poverty rate, that would be a victory. That the poverty rate has actually fallen a full point from 1996 (13.7% then to 12.6% now--an 8% reduction) is a significant success. ... P.S.: The black poverty rate has fallen from 28.4% in 1996 to 24.9% in 2005, a 12% drop. In 1993, when Clinton took office, it was 33.1%. Since then it has dropped by more than a third. ... P.P.S.: And think what the poverty numbers might have looked like without the arrival of millions of hard-working, unskilled illegal immigrants bidding down the wages of those $7 and $8 an hour jobs....
This bears repeating - "The purpose of welfare reform wasn't to lower the poverty rate. It was to move people from welfare to work."
Just don't expect the "social justice" advocates to embrace any such nonsense!
That's right, because "social justice" is doublespeak for "redistribution of wealth" or a centralized economy, or in other words, Communism.
In English speaking democracies, there is leagal justice, where individuals are all equal before the law. Anyone who talks of "social justice" would do away with that altogether.
What's the difference between being poor and on welfare and being poor and working?
The worker has less time to commit crimes?
The worker contributes to society?
The worker has a better chance of not being poor in the future?
Kaus is right. If the poverty level didn't change after welfare reform, that's still a net benefit.
Those damn REPUBLICANS. Must they continue to improve things? It sure make the commies look stupid, oh right they don't need anyone but themselves to do that.
"social justice" = What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine.
Fred your sounding like my exwife.
And since the "poverty level" is an arbitrary number anyhow...
Here in Canada, my other and I were startled to learn on the local news, back in the 80s, that we "lived below the poverty line". Indeed, my mother worked for little more than the minimum wage (as did I in after school job), but somehow we managed to pay all our bills on time, buy clothes and furniture, eat...
Of course, not being a crack head helps.
"Of course, not being a crack head helps."
Or a jewel thief.
Kathy: ROOT CAUSES!
It's poverty that drove them to crack! They needed to feed their children and someone told them that money grows out of thin air if you smoke a crack pipe. What they didn't say was that is was all their money in the end.
Where are the social programs!? They could have taught them to SELL socialism, er, I mean crack, not SMOKE it.
Here's another benefit to those mentioned by
Half Canadian:
The worker shows his or her children what it's like to get up every morning, go to work and be a contributing member of society.
Hey Barbara,
That's just perpetuating the cycle of prosperity.
Social justice advocates are interested in only one thing....advocating. Practical solutions that would serve to motivate the underclass are soundly discouraged!!!
I mean think about it....if the welfare class were trained through workfare programs and became indepedent who the hell are the social justice advocates going to advocate for?
Even worse they could concievably be put out of work and their whole self-professed morally, intellectually and ideologically superior system would collapse!!
HORRORS!!!!
Because the really important thing about social justice is not that it is being done, rather that it is appearing to be done.
It has taken decades for the socialists in this country to perfect their perpetual motion machine of social justice!!!
How dare anyone threaten such a vital industry.
Syncro
p.s. Like all other perpetual motion machines this one requires constant input ie. taxpayer dollars....really just a minor point when one considers the relative importance and righteousness of the machine itself.
The bottomline is that if you are uneducated, unskilled, unmotivated and have poor work habits you will make a marginal living, as you should. But, the real point is that YOU should be earning it, not sucking off of the welfare system. Too many did it here for multi-generations. Even if you only get the equivalent of your old welfare check, because of all of the above, then, at at least you are out of bed in the morning and contributing something to society and yourself.
How hard is it to take some personal responsibility to finish high school, not get knocked up at 16, stay away from street drugs, find a mate that's responsible, marry and stay married? What's stopping anyone that screwed up on any of the above from taking personal responsibility and turning it around later? It's not easy, it's only doable when you stop blaming everybody else and whining.
Syncrodox - don't forget the minions of social workers, case managers, and mental health workers, etc on the government payroll that hardly want to see the mass welfare industry become obsolete.
http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-scarey-hidden-agenda.html
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!
One thing these studies fail to demonstrate is that America has a very upwardly mobile society. The poor population is not static. For the most part, this demographic is continually represented and replaced by emerging groups of newly employed 19-25 year olds and new immigrants. The percentage of actual chronically impoverished within the US is a pretty small.
Even the homeless poor within the US is an interesting study. My spouse works feeding the homeless poor in an average, mid-sized US city. Yes, many of the homeless poor are mentally ill and some are disabled. Many of these are only homeless because their existing problems are compounded by addiction. Also, there is a large percentage of able-bodied addicts within the homeless population.
Of the homeless poor she services, from 30-50% receive government benefit checks. This estimate is based on comparing the number of guests requiring services at the beginning of the month (when government checks are disbursed), and the number requiring services from the middle through the end of the month. Many of the homeless that receive government benefits (often more than my wife's monthly wages), spend their benefits on cheap motel rooms, drugs, and hookers. (They are very open and expressive about their lives).
The networked charities in my community offer many services for addiction recovery, job training, and housing for the homeless poor willing to get back on their feet, and are sucessful in permanently helping some who are willing to make a change. The unfortunate reality is that many, among the American poor homeless population, elect to remain homeless poor as a lifestyle choice.
In fairness, I must point out that this successful Welfare Reform package was passed under Clinton. Similar legislation had been proposed under the Bush Sr. administration, but a Democratic majority congress repeatedly tanked it. Clinton ran on welfare reform, and it was the only reason I voted for him. Had I known we would have a terrorist attack on the WTC in '93 that Clinton would pursue through our civil court system, and that we would face a growing threat from al Queda that Clinton would not effectively address, I would have never voted for him.
Doug, great comment: "In English speaking democracies, there is leagal justice, where individuals are all equal before the law. Anyone who talks of "social justice" would do away with that altogether."
Penny
Bang on!! I stumbled into a brief career(5 yrs) in the social services industry through the "clients" door.
Practicality and measurable results were frowned upon, platitudes and public advocacy were much preferred.
As a co-creator/facilitator/forman in a behavioural change/employment program I found the greatest barriers to change and personal responsibility resided with the management/advocates rather than the "clients".
Of the five distinct careers I've had in my life I discovered the social services/advocacy/not-for-profit industry to be populated by some of the most vile, corrupt, dishonest, covert, disgusting and truely self serving individuals I have ever met.
And let me be clear....that was management.
Syncro
I might also add, the charity my wife works for receives some government grants that help support some of their programs and facility expenses. Private charity, local churches and community groups provide most of the funding and cook/serve the meals to feed the homeless. Each of these wonderful private groups generally sign up to provide one meal a month, and they go all out. If my town is representative of America, they eat better than you do. They definitely eat better than my family.
The scope of private charity within the US is largely ignored by Socialist countries conditioned to only count money funneled through the state bureaucracy.
Tom Penn - good post. Here's a kicker. I service the mentally ill in a crisis center. So many of the real mentally ill, especially homeless schizophrenics, receive nada. Now, everyone is Bipolar, and scrambling for their SSDI. It's the most used and abused diagnosis out there. Lazy slackers prey upon the diagnosis in large numbers.
Clinton only passed, groveling as he did, welfare reform because the Congress was majority Republican during his second term. Trust me, no Dem ever wants someone to become able bodied and escape their plantation.
"In English speaking democracies, there is leagal justice, where individuals are all equal before the law."
Posted by: Doug at August 30, 2006 12:21 PM
Are you serious?
You can't actually believe someone who is forced to sell their home to pay lawyers' bills receives as much"justice"as an individual or corporation that can easily afford a top team of barristers?
How many politicians, or celebrities have you seen get preferential treatment?
Do you honestly believe O.J.would have walked away if he were just a poor black man?(He is now!)
Ask Caledonians what they think of equality in Canada.
Ask men involved in custody/support battles if they are treated equally to women.
Ask those who passed away(too late!)waiting while their case was virtually stalled by some lawyer's heartless,but profitable tactics.
Granted,this is still a great system compared to most other nations,but please don't whitewash the corruption of equality by money,lawyers,fame,lawyers,political correctness and lawyers.
Penny, I'll be you see it all in your job. I stand corrected, you're right about the Republican Congress. I am glad welfare reform passed. It's the only thing Clinton ever did that was worth a damn. The ecomony was built on stilts, and I resent like hell Clinton's degradation of our national security and defense capabilities. I won't forgive the Dems for that.
I am a addict/alcoholic sober for 15 years now and I believe that if the welfare system had not enabled me to stay in my addiction I would have gotten sober sooner, as it was only when I hit bottom that I became willing to accept help and do what I needed to do to stay sober, welfare kept me from hitting that bottom for years. And when I did get sober welfare did not help me get employed and off welfare. I started a small business with a $350 pick up truck and am a self employed sober tax payer to this day with no help from the welfare system.
Tom Penn makes a good point. We don't have a poor "class," meaning the same people (ethnic, religious, etc) are the poor. That does happen in the enlightened third world, you know the one we are supposed to emulate. Nothing is going to change though, mainly because of how "poverty" is measured by activists. They use Stats Can low income cut-offs (LICO), which are designed as a statistical measure of relative inequality of income. Stats Can itself has said time and time again that LICO is not a measure of poverty. Nevertheless this stat is paraded around as a poverty line and anyone who dares to question this is met with an emotional "you try to live on that" response. BTW, even if every Canadian became a millionaire, the percentage of poverty would not change. How can we make necessary and meaningful reforms if we keep using bogus analysis?
According to Statscan, in cities the size of Saskatoon, a family of four who lives below $31,952/year is living in poverty. For the rural area it is $25,744/year.
Alan - bless your heart and your honest testimony. Addiction treatment is now an industry with another group of government paid minions that have really no vested interest in your sobriety. They do the "chemical imbalance" and the bad genes mantra freeing the addicted from their behavioral responsibility. The leftists play upon some whacked out sense of collective guilt, the social victim, that I don't share. Oh, and psych is so lefty dominated a field.
25 years in psych nursing, I can spot the genuine from the disingenuous in a heartbeat. Can't we all.
fred and free, I believe the proper saying is "what's mine is mine and what's yours is ours"
Mr Harper has found a new welfare recipient to give $55 million of your money to...the circus.
2010 Olympics.
Alan, congratulations to you! I know addiction recovery is a long, hard struggle. It's nice to meet another WINNER!
One more point to add about the homeless. In my town, we have a charity mission with adequate beds for everyone who wants to stay there at night. They have strict rules, however. No drugs, no alcohol, and you have to check in by 6 PM. The only homeless that sleep on our streets are those that choose crank or booze over a bed and a roof.
Buddy, can ya spare a hurricane? ...-
"The last thing poverty pimps wants is for their prostitutes to think."
Katrina, Poverty, and the US Job Market
Excerpt:
The title pretty much sums up his main point: The Hallmark of the Underclass- The poverty Katrina underscored is primarily moral, not material.
Here's the money paragraph:
Perhaps the programs now being proposed by the administration will help ordinary poor people whose socialization is just fine and need nothing more than a chance. It is comforting to think so, but past experience with similar programs does not give reason for optimism--it is hard to exaggerate how ineffectually they have been administered. In any case, poor people who are not part of the underclass seldom need help to get out of poverty. Despite the exceptions that get the newspaper ink, the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive. And behaving self-destructively is the hallmark of the underclass.
This is surely not an argument the advocates of the poor want to hear, let alone consider. They'd prefer to seize upon arguments like the one Bill Bennett made last week because it allows them to call their detractors racist. Once so-designated, the argument need not really be considered. And that's precisely what any advocates want. The last thing poverty pimps wants is for their prostitutes to think. ...-
http://www.thebusinessofamericaisbusiness.biz/2005/10/katrina_poverty_and_the_us_job_1.html
What's the big deal? According to the data provided, poverty rates for all people rose from a post-WWII low of 11.1 in 1973 to 12.6 in 2005, a 14% increase.
Non-Hispanic whites saw an increase from 7.5% in 1973 to 8.3% in 2005, an increase of 11%. Black poverty rates, while falling drastically since 1959 saw an increase from 22.5%, the lowest rate since 1959, in 2000 to 24.9% in 2005, an increase of 11% since Bush II took office. Asian rates of poverty are up and the Hispanic rate is virtually unchanged since 1973.
Edwin S. Rubenstein, at VDare writes:
"The poverty rate fell like a rock from World War II until 1972. Then it stopped falling. Poverty reached its all-time low, 11.1%, in 1973—thirty years ago. It’s been oscillating sideways ever since. Not even the boom of the 1990s was able to break this pattern. For the poor, the Great American Bread Machine appears to have stalled.
Why? Of course, a lot has changed since 1973. But one factor neither official nor think-tank Washington never mentions: mass immigration, unleashed after a 40-year lull by the 1965 Immigration Act."
Republican congress under a Clinton administration is responsible for 'welfare reform' in which parents were made to GO TO WORK. THAT'S the welfare 'reform' Clinton touts as being a result of his legacy. If it were not for the republican congress arm twisting him into it, it never would have gotten done.
It was tried in BC , in which VanderZalm told the welfare bums to "get a shovel" if they wanted to collect welfare. You can still hear the echos of the screams from the left.
We cannot afford to be all things to all people. Those who want to work should be able to work. Those who refuse to work and can work should never , ever collect welfare. Let us not be too haughty to take pay that some feel is beneath them. I have heard many, many times that the wages are just too trivial and welfare 'pays' so much better... forgetting , surely, that to collect that welfare means you take for yourself from the work of others your life of ease.
Those who are in need , of course, should be helped for that is our duty as a society. Too often though, the unworthy and criminal take much of the money to squander, smoke and destroy not only themselves but the very fabric of our social structure.
Thanks to Ted Kennedy for that 1965 immigration act ... and then Clinton, too, had his hand in it, promising over 3 million illegal aliens in California that if they wanted to stay in the US and voted ( can you imagine??? illegal aliens openly courted by a democrat president) for him, he would see to it they 'could stay' [and vote again and again and again for democrats]
Open voter fraud from this bunch and look at the screaming they did in 2000!!
What a shameful bunch. Much like the libs in Canada ( and the NDP right with 'em)
We need to be able to work, pay taxes, have enough left over without being goughed to death to have a home, car and be able to raise our children without being clawed at by those who refuse to work along side and pay their way too.
From 'free' injection sites ( good gawd!) to all manner of bleeding heart pleas for all manner of 'social programs' we are taxed and dunned to death. Those who work and contribute to society should be revered and respected.
It is time that got started in earnest.
A good place to start is right in Caledonia where those poor citizens have been put upon enough.
The claws of the unworthy and snarling, seeking to obtain something not theirs nor deserving of anything by their behaviour, continue to rule the day.
There will be a reckoning. The pendulum always swings back.
Does this include the corporate Walfare Bums such as our independant,when it suits them farmers?? Have you lived around rural Sask or around these not so poor bastards. To me they are worse than the Natives. I wish I was the son of a farmer. Life would be alot easier. But every Gov't kiss asses them to get votes. I'd redraw the election boudries to reflect where most of the people are. Not in Rural Sask. You spoiled brats on this blog need to try and live on 7.00 an hr or less on welfare. All you right wing WASPS think the solution to everything is more police,more guns,more jails and kick them bums off of welfare. I wonder what you would think if farmers were native and not for the most part white. And remember the farmers got this land given to them for a song. I come from a rural base and have been watching farmers thumb their noses at the rest of us from before most of you on this blog were born. I have worked with people on welfare. It's not pretty. Try living on 6,000.00 a year. Give your heads a shake. In the states and here most people on welfare are poor and alot are emotionally ill. You guys on here don't have a clue what that's like. In the states they emptied out their hospitals and the people are forced to beg and live on the streets. Have you ever been unemployed? Ui only lasts so long. Try living on welfare. The stress of their lives makes them sick and costs us all in the long run.Not all of them are drug addicts either. I hope I live to see when your kind is run out of power. The tories are heartless bunch of pampered spoiled brats. They need their right wing asses kicked around the block.