From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Poverty
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 13:55:29 GMT

In article <00715727470@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>From article <1992Sep4.130143.12988@tamsun.tamu.edu>, by fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298):
>> Well the Democrats must be having a party.
>> The Census Bureau said that 30 million folk
>> are in "poverty".  The War on Poverty has been 
>> lost in spite of the fact that welfare spending
>> reached $226 billion (five times the amount 
>> spent in 1964 after inflation adjustment).
>
>The poverty level, as a percentage of population, declined steadily from
>the year 1964 to the year 1979. Then it started a sharp increase. The
>increase was especially large in the early 80's.

>See, for example, the graph in the September 3 edition of the Houston
>Chronicle, which is taken from U.S. government statistics. Or go by your
>local library and look at the Statistical Abstract of the United States.
>All you have to lose is your ignorance.

  Well, I'm not so sure _I_ want to get out _my_ ten-foot pole,
but I would like to add that (for those that don't know) that,
even whether or not a person is "in poverty" is exactly the
hotly disputed topic in question.  Mr. Rector was pointing out
that the report from which the Houston Chronicle likely drew its
information left out a lot of non-cash payments and that they,
if counted, would put many fewer people "below poverty".
This is important because these payments have been increasing
in real terms for at least a decade (according to my
data from the Congressional Research Office).

  
  However, that being said, I would _also_ like to point out
that it is certainly true that nearly all Americans lost
real income during the recession marred years of 1979-1982.
These years were disastrous by virtually any measure.  
This is particularly true for those with lower incomes.


   Equally, during the last recession, lower income people were certainly
hit harder than many of the rest of America (as is, unfortunately,
fairly standard for recessions).  This being said, it is unsurprising
that people and in particular poorer people do less well during
the time periods you mentioned.  They also (according to the
numbers I have) did much better during the expansion of the 80s
('83-'90 basically).

  I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just trying to flesh out
your point a bit with the information I have.  No matter how 
you look at it, it remains a serious problem in need of solutions.



>
>However, I don't think that
>welfare spending, as a whole, particularly needs cutting -- if you add up
>AFDC, food stamps, and Medicaid all together, you get about the price of
>two Stealth Bombers. By far the majority of government spending is on more
>direct subsidies to the middle-class and wealthy, such as farm price
>supports and the S&L bailout (which by itself was more money than we spend
>on welfare in ten year's time).

  Once again, I think I agree with you on many of your points, but
I believe your statement about the Stealth Bombers is inaccurate.

  Medicaid itself costs us $70 billion dollars.  I believe that
a good old Stealth Bomber cost $600 million dollars.  At least,
that's what my used Cold War Material salesman told me.  Additionally,
the food and housing benefits of our entitlement programs adds up
to $51.78 billion.  I have some more figures if you would
like me to look them up.


  Note that I am _not_ saying we shouldn't be spending this money.
I think I basically agree with you.  We should do a much better
job of spending the money since the way we currently spend it
leaves much to be desired.


Pat



-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.