That’s rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record
By Dave Boyer
-
The Washington Times
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama.
Aides said Mr. Obama doesn't plan to commemorate the anniversary Wednesday of Johnson's speech in 1964, which gave rise to Medicaid, Head Start and a broad range of other federal anti-poverty programs. The president's only public event Tuesday was a plea for Congress to approve extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, another reminder of the persistent economic troubles during Mr. Obama's five years in office.
"What I think the American people are really looking for in 2014 is just a little bit of stability," Mr. Obama said.
Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.
The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.
About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.
President Obama's anti-poverty efforts "are basically to give more people more free stuff," said Robert Rector, a specialist on welfare and poverty at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"That's exactly the opposite of what Johnson said," Mr. Rector said. "Johnson's goal was to make people prosperous and self-sufficient."
The president's advisers defend his policies by saying they rescued the nation from the deep recession in 2009, saved the auto industry and reduced the jobless rate to 7 percent from a high of 10 percent four years ago.
Gene Sperling, the president's top economic adviser, said Mr. Obama has pulled as many as 9 million people out of poverty with policies such as extending the earned income tax credit for parents with three or more children and reducing the "marriage penalty."
"There are things that this president has done that have made a big difference," Mr. Sperling said Monday.
The White House again is pushing for an increase in the federal minimum wage, this time advocating a Senate bill that would raise the hourly rate to $10.10 from its current $7.25. Mr. Sperling said that action would lift another 6.8 million workers out of poverty.
"It would make them less dependent on government programs. It would not add to the deficit one penny, but it would reward work and reduce poverty," he said.
The president is expected to use his State of the Union address Jan. 20 to pressure Congress to raise the minimum wage. He made the same pitch a year ago.
Democrats are advocating issues such as unemployment benefits and the minimum wage especially hard this year as the class-warfare rhetoric heats up to frame the congressional midterm elections. House Republican leaders oppose increasing the minimum wage and want unemployment benefits to be paid with savings elsewhere in the budget. Mr. Obama is insisting that the benefits be extended without offsets.
The president last month declared the widening gap between rich and poor as "the defining challenge of our time," and Democratic candidates are expected to pick up that theme on the campaign trail rather than debate deficits and the complications of Obamacare.
In spite of the administration's anti-poverty efforts, however, the government reported this week that poverty by some measures has been worse under Mr. Obama than it was under President George W. Bush. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that 31.6 percent of Americans were in poverty for at least two months from 2009 to 2011, a 4.5 percentage point increase over the pre-recession period of 2005 to 2007.
Of the 37.6 million people who were poor at the beginning of 2009, 26.4 percent remained in poverty throughout the next 34 months, the report said. Another 12.6 million people escaped poverty during that time, but 13.5 million more fell into poverty.
Mr. Rector said the war on poverty has been a failure when measured by the overall amount of money spent and poverty rates that haven't changed significantly since Johnson gave his speech.
"We've spent $20.7 trillion on means-tested aid since that time, and the poverty rate is pretty much exactly where it was in the mid-1960s," he said.
The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in a report that some trends have helped reduce poverty since the 1960s, including more Americans completing high school and more women working outside the home. But the group said other factors have contributed to persistent poverty, including a tripling in the number of households led by single parents.
Mr. Rector said too many government anti-poverty programs still discourage marriage, factoring into statistics that show more than four in 10 children are born to unmarried parents.
"When the war on poverty started, about 6 percent of children were born outside of marriage," he said. "Today that's 42 percent — catastrophe."
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/#ixzz2pq4WrPyi
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's widely understood that poverty is highly correlated with income inequality, and income inequality is highly correlated with how progressive the prevailing system of taxation is. Obama has not been able to significantly alter the tax code, which is the most regressive it's been in decades, on account of Republican obstructionism in Congress.
Get rid of the Tea Party in November and this will be fixed. It's right wing resistance that is the problem.
So far the Republicans have been able to cling, by the barest fingernail of margins, on an almost absolute throttlehold on the legislative branch, first by nonstop filibustering in the Senate, and now by having a majority in the House thanks to rampant district gerrymandering to a degree not seen in probably a hundred years. (Democratic candidates for US Representative garnered a million or two more votes than Republican candidates in 2012, yet still Democrats didn't win the House.) Yes, the Affordable Care Act and a few other items have been passed over the bedlamite howls of do-nothing tea-baggers, but generally the wheels of small "d" democracy have been jammed by the monkey wrench of massive corporate interests wearing the mask of Joe the Plumber.
Things are changing, though. I remain optimistic. The Affordable Care Act, as I always felt it would, is starting to pick up steam and should become unstoppable within the next few months.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungStandard libtard claim, after almost 6 years in office and getting everything he wanted handed to him, the failure of Obama's policies are the fault of the other side that's out of power.
Get rid of the Tea Party in November and this will be fixed. It's right wing resistance that is the problem.
Genius thinking.
"OMG Obamacare is a total failure...it's The Tea Party's Fault !"
It has to be because the truth is too hard to swallow.
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15Oh that's right, they don't play that Schoolhouse Rock "How a Bill Becomes a Law" during the Saturday morning cartoons anymore, do they? So how could you know?
Standard libtard claim, after almost 6 years in office and getting everything he wanted handed to him, the failure of Obama's policies are the fault of the other side that's out of power.
Genius thinking.
Originally posted by SoothfastI stopped reading after this. What a pant load. Obama had a bulletproof majority for 2 years. He wasted it.
[b]It's widely understood that poverty is highly correlated with income inequality, and income inequality is highly correlated with how progressive the prevailing system of taxation is. Obama has not been able to significantly alter the tax code, which is the most regressive it's been in decades, on account of Republican obstructionism in Congress.
Originally posted by sasquatch672It is not Obama's fault it is _______ fault! (insert name here)
That’s rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record
By Dave Boyer
-
The Washington Times
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under Pr ...[text shortened]... as-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/#ixzz2pq4WrPyi
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Originally posted by dryhumpNope, there was little waste, except in the earliest days when Democrats tried to compromise with Republicans and found them unwilling to budge an inch on anything. In 2009 and 2010 the Democrats in Congress got the ACA passed, along with a boatload of other significant legislation. They didn't really get to taxes, though, and that's because the Bush tax cuts weren't due to expire until the end of 2010. Remember? No?? Too bad, because that's the truth of the matter. Also, early on, Ted Kennedy died and Scott Brown went to Washington, which lost the Democrats their filibuster-proof majority within months of Obama's swearing in ceremony.
I stopped reading after this. What a pant load. Obama had a bulletproof majority for 2 years. He wasted it.
Where'd you get this "bulletproof majority for 2 years" horsecrap? Fox or fantasy? I can understand if you can't parse the two apart. Anyone who's capable of being objective for a minute should be able to readily recognize that Obama, not actually being an emperor or dictator, must still go through Congress to get his major legislation enacted.
You know what Republicans and the Tea Party fringe need to do? They need to quit whining that Obama isn't doing anything while simultaneously bitching about everything he does. You know, make the propaganda at least superficially self-consistent!
What amazes me is the number of chuckleheads here and everywhere who still defend this Marxist prick. His signature legislation is a terrible failure by any measure and a brutal assault on the Republic and the Constitution. He is by far the most imperious and high-handed President since Nixon. He has diminished the prestige and power United States and harmed her allies. America's enemies have not advanced so much in decades. He has doubled the national debt. He is likely the worst president anyone living will see except perhaps for Nixon. His presidency has been one indefensible action after another. There is very little good, and a great deal of bad, in his actions, inactions, and failures.