(If you’re just joining this series, please read the previous installments.)
Welfare — Has it Helped the Poor? (Part 1)
Or, as Dr. Phil Would Say, “How’s That Working For You?”
Back in the early 1960’s, President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to wage a war on poverty. It was called just that; “The War on Poverty.” He claimed that, within two years, poverty, as we know it, would be wiped out. This would happen by government forcibly taking money from those above a certain income level and redistributing that money to people who were below a certain income level.
The intent was to give the poor a helping hand, leading them out of poverty, and onto a life of liberty, responsibility, and abundance.
Since most of us, as human beings, care about the plight of the poor and genuinely wish to help them, it probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
Yep, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Imagine; just two years … and poverty, as we knew it, would be all but wiped out in our country. Gone. History, No more. Vanquished.
Turn the clock ahead 50 years and what has the result been?
Let’s put it this way; the “War on Poverty” has been just about as successful as the “War on Drugs” … meaning it hasn’t been successful at all and — for all practical purposes — has only made things worse.
Yes, just $9 trillion dollars (that would be $9,000,000,000,000) later, we have just as many people in poverty per capita as we had back then, third and fourth generations of welfare recipients have grown up never seeing their parents bring home a paycheck, their self-esteem is all but shot, and many see no way out. No way out at all. In fact, they are all but trapped within the Welfare System.
Government bureaucrats, as I’m sure well-intentioned as most of them truly are, have a vested personal interest in keeping welfare alive and well. After all, that’s how they make their living. And, government’s rules and regulations on how private charity groups can operate (please understand, these groups are perceived by government to be their competition) have put many of these groups right out of business despite their excellent track records, and have discouraged many other similar groups from even trying. Not to mention, with so much of people’s hard-earned money going to Welfare via taxation, many people who would otherwise give abundantly to the poor will not do so, figuring that they’ve already “done their part.”
Quite simply, government needs to get out of the welfare business.
Does this mean we shouldn’t help the poor? Of course not! If you know anything about me, then you know the answer to that is, “We should definitely help the poor!” We should absolutely make and continue to make a concerted effort to help the poor, both in immediate and long-term assistance. However, the key is that “We” should; we the People, “we” as in individual citizens, groups, charities, etc. NOT government.
After all, we want to actually help the poor; not just “pay lip service” to helping the poor. And government — as is the case with most things they do — has done a terribly bad job at it.
Over the next several installments, we’ll look at how — by getting government out of a job for which they’ve proved to be unqualified (notice we haven’t even brought up that it is not within their legitimate Constitutional functions), and putting this extremely worthy task back into the hands of those who are much more qualified — we can truly make a difference in the “War on Poverty.”
Enjoy this post? Receive an update when our next post is published by entering your best email address below and clicking Get Updates.
Bob- the core question and issue is this: WHO is responsible for the poor? What personal responsibility for their situation do they have? In many cases, people are poor because of their choices. I have seen this first hand when I worked in a soup kitchen. And those who wanted off of welfare, found that the system was designed to keep them dependent. It’s not a “leg up”.
I also argue that God has charged people of faith – especially Christian and Jewish people with feeding, clothing and housing the poor – who can not care for themselves. In the Bible- it is not the government’s job, except in times of national disaster – like a worldwide famine.
Hi Karen, Thank you for your input. I believe the key is that when government — an entity that is neither Constitutionally authorized, nor in any way proficient in the area of helping the poor — is removed from this situation, then individuals, organized groups of individuals (including religious organizations of various faiths), businesses and all others that are much better qualified to help those who truly cannot help themselves, will be the answer. It will also mean that taxes will be significantly lower, meaning that the already-generous American public will have even more disposable income to contribute.
In a future installment, we’ll discus another way in which those who truly cannot help themselves will be helped . . . and in a manner that is efficient and actually helpful, instead of like the current government-run system we have today.
I totally agree. Especially the part about the bureaucrats keeping their job. As an example. Has anyone noticed that the severely handicapped “work” in jobs where they need helpers to accomplish the job. This makes jobs for many people. The much less severely handicapped (or differently abled if I am offending anyone) sit on welfare. For a lifetime. These are the people who used to tend the field, the children, the old folks and the handicapped. Now we are running out of money paying others to do these jobs while these people stay home. I began my life believing that it was my job to get out there and help these people succeed. Help them get off welfare. My father tried and failed and raised me to take over. I tried. I took families into my home. I provided homes for them. I learned a lot. The biggest lessons were that these people were very happy thank you. No help needed for them to succeed. If, however, I wanted to do and do and do for them. They would take it. some people will read this and condemn me, thinking I don’t understand. I do. alice
Great series, Bob. My favorite quote on welfare:
“What tends to do away with poverty is not getting pictures of poverty into your mind, but getting pictures of wealth into the minds of the poor. The poor do not need charity, they need inspiration.” Wallace Wattles
As you pointed out, the war on poverty created more of it, as one would expect. We now have 3 wars – poverty, drugs, terrorism – each with a large industry dependent on its continued existence. With that kind of a built in constituency it’s gonna be tough to end them. But we have to.
Cheers to you for this effort,
Wes
Bob,
You hit the nail on the head, my friend!
We must never forget that the difference between individual charity and government welfare is the gun that forces the redistribution!
Thanks again for keeping this discussion going!
-David
Hi Wes, yes, that line out of Wallace Wattles, “The Science of Getting Rich” is powerful. The one area that I might amend is that there are times when we’ve still got to give that person a fish so he won’t be starving while he’s being taught how to fish. However . . . that fish should come voluntarily from individuals and groups of caring individuals; not by government fiat. Thank you for your comment. Great!
David, you’re right; that gun IS the difference. And, while many would prefer not to think of it that way, since that is the the ultimate weapon should the individual not comply, that is indeed the actual threat.
A most interesting series. I will be using your comments to discuss these issues with my (homeschooled) chldren. I was raised in the public school system and it has taken time to realize the true way of the world. I hope you will also be addressing the “education” system in this wseries as well, because it is key to changing perceptions about how we relate to our government and economy.
Thank you, Thomas, I’m honored to know that you’ll be using these articles as part of your homeschool lessons. I have so much admiration for homeschooling and homeschoolers.
The educational system will indeed be a topic of discussion a bit down the road. Thank you again!
Can you just be our next President? or maybe teach a class to our ‘representatives’ and whomever does not pass the final exam gets replaced with someone who understands and vows to uphold the Constitution as it was intended? 🙂
I realize I am coming to the party a couple of years late, but I just needed to comment.
While it is true that the Federal Government is not empowered to provide welfare to the poor, the several States do have the power to provide welfare, unless their State Constitutions forbid it.
Remember the 10th amendment says powers not granted to the Feds are reserved to the states.
This brings up an interesting take on the whole Capitalism verses Socialism; is Socialism (coerced participation) done at a local level more palatable than when it is done at a Federal level? It could be argued that the States have the power to tax locally and set aside a portion of that tax for the care of the poor, whereas the Federal Government does not have that power.
It is not as simple as “Capitalism vs. Socialism.”
Capitalism, by definition, is operated for the benefit of the people and organizations that have the most capital. Imagine all the incorporated police departments operating to maximize profits for their shareholders while fighting their competition – other police departments.
Socialism, by definition, is operated for the benefit of all the people equally. Imagine everyone owning an equal share in all the wealth of the nation and receiving the same wages.
Neither system has ever worked by itself anywhere, even under ideal circumstances. A well regulated economic system, that includes a combination of both Capitalism and Socialism, is quite possible. It has worked quite well in America before the deregulation and anti-competitive merging of most major industries. Now that the corporations, banks, Wall Street, ultra-wealthy families, and trade unions own most of the politicians and judges, it may be too late to avoid another Fall of Rome.
Hi Jacques, while I certainly appreciate your taking the time to respond, I must respectfully disagree on several points (aside from the fact that I do believe it actually *is* as simply as “Capitalism vs. Socialism.”
In your second paragraph, you mentioned police departments operating to maximize their profits, etc. Please go back to my article where I mentioned that a legitimate function of government is to protect its citizenry from force and fraud. In that sense, police (in this case, on a local level) is certainly a legitimate function of government and does not qualify as socialism.
When you say, in your fourth paragraph that “Neither system has ever worked by itself anywhere, even under idea circumstances, let’s take a quick look at this. Socialism absolutely never has, and it has been tried often.
Capitalism has *never* ever been allowed to operate in full. If you will click on the link in the article (that says “previous installments”) you will see that I explain this near the very beginning.
But, to the degree it has been allowed to operate, that is the degree to which our country (and any other country that has employed it) has prospered.
Most of all, where you say that a system that includes a combination of the two “isms” could work, that cannot be true by the very nature of the thing. Why? It’s like saying a glass of water that is half pure water and half dirty water. As soon as it is touched by he dirty water, the pure water becomes dirty.
Cameron, I appreciate that. I’m afraid that by speaking the truth I’d be un-electable. LOL
DC, thank you for your question. You wrote: “is Socialism (coerced participation) done at a local level more palatable than when it is done at a Federal level? It could be argued that the States have the power to tax locally and set aside a portion of that tax for the care of the poor, whereas the Federal Government does not have that power.”
May I answer that in two parts: First, while it might or might not be more palatable just because it is local, if there are ever going to be times when politicians can make rules affecting your life, it’s always more preferable when local for a couple of reasons: A, those spending your money (the politicians) are more easily monitored by their constituents and held accountable. And, as the saying goes, it’s easier to move to another town than another county; it’s easier to move to another county than it is to another state, and it’s easier to move to another state than to move to another country. In other words, the threat that those in their tax base will leave is always a greater threat to the more local politician.
The second thing is, I believe it is our responsibility as citizens to help the less fortunate. And, we, the citizens as individuals and voluntary groups of individuals (called charities) do a much, much more effective job of helping the less fortunate than does any government body; federal, state or local. Thank you again for writing.
I have been a capitalistic entrepreneur since 1961. It was pretty easy for a kid, whose father drove a truck, to become a millionaire. And, that was in the days when the top income tax bracket was upwards of 75%. Upward mobility was the norm.
I like your idea that “… it is our responsibility as citizens to help the less fortunate. And, we, the citizens as individuals and voluntary groups of individuals (called charities) do a much, much more effective job of helping the less fortunate than does any government body; federal, state or local.” However, I see that a large part of our population is now in poor health, poorly housed, poorly educated and/or close to starvation. Where is all of that benevolence? When will it show up?
We now have the most wide-open, unregulated capitalistic system since the 1930s and the buying power of the average family is lower now than 30 years ago. However, the unearned (inherited) capital of the top 4 percent of the population is close to fifty percent of the total economy and growing.
The purpose of capitalism is to increase the profits of the people who have capital. Thus, they get more capital. I’m not saying that’s bad. But, eventually the capitalists will be able to buy the power to oppress the non-capitalists. They already own most of the law-makers.
The $ Trillions stolen buy bankers and brokers are the result of unfettered, unregulated capitalism. They cleaned out the retirement programs of millions of people. They are still doing it. And, they seem to be cleaning their feet in your dirty-water analogy.
The most successful capitalistic economy in the world is now in Germany. The difference between them and us is that their capitalism is highly regulated.
Hi Jacques, good morning. With all respect, I’m a bit taken aback some of the premises you’ve put forth.
Jacques write: “However, I see that a large part of our population is now in poor health, poorly housed, poorly educated and/or close to starvation. Where is all of that benevolence? When will it show up?”
Bob responds: I’m wondering if you have read any of the previous articles in this series. Jacques, this is a result of government intervention, excessive regulation and collusion with big business (which is “Corporatism, not Capitalism”) that has crippled the economy and made many people dependent rather than self-sufficient. With that said, this country is still the most charitable and giving of all others. I have reported actual figures elsewhere. On the other hand, when government takes money out of the producer’s hands, there is certainly less charitable money available.
Jacques writes: “We now have the most wide-open, unregulated capitalistic system since the 1930s…”
Bob responds: I am “beside myself” with disbelief at the moment. I’ve read some of your tweets and articles and respect so much of your thought process. How can you possibly, possibly believe that we are living in a “wide-open, unregulated capitalistic system”?? I can’t even answer your question because it is based on a statement that is absolutely not factual. The scary thing is, since I know you are a man of impeccable honesty, I can only conclude that you actually believe that statement.
Jacques writes: They (the Capitalists) already own most of the law-makers.
Bob responds: This is not Capitalism, it’s Corporatism. Please see my article on this (http://bit.ly/AEczA). It has nothing to do with Capitalism. Just because someone desires to make money that doesn’t make them a Capitalist. If they are employing (or attempting to employ) the force of government to give them the unfair advantage through various rules and regulations, they are not Capitalists. Capitalism includes a free exchange of products, goods and services between two or more willing parties.”
Jacques writes: The $ Trillions stolen buy bankers and brokers are the result of unfettered, unregulated capitalism. They cleaned out the retirement programs of millions of people. They are still doing it. And, they seem to be cleaning their feet in your dirty-water analogy.
Bob responds: Again, I’m just so astounded that you believe it was the result of “unfettered, unregulated capitalism.” The rules and regulations allowing the bankers and brokers to do this were bought and paid for by Wall St. and were bought from the legislators who are supposed to be protecting and defending the public. I just don’t understand how someone like you would not know this. Please read the following article. And, then, please tell me that you no longer believe it was the result of unfettered, unregulated capitalism. https://www.burg.com/liberty.html
And, that “dirty water” you are referring to? Jacques…that’s exactly my point, my friend. You cannot mix Capitalism with Socialism (of which “Corporatism” a/k/a corporate socialism is a part) without dirtying the water and making it eventually undrinkable. One way that true Capitalism protects the citizenry is by making everyone play by the same rules.
Social Security’s “bankruptcy date” will be a lot sooner than forecast; all of these effects are causing severe damage to the rest of the workforce and the economy usually. Anyone who thinks Generation Y will have access to the exact same quality of Social Security benefits is going to be either be dead or extremely disappointed when it comes time for them to collect.
I’d say you’re about 100 percent correct on that!