A mystery number

Published January 25, 2014

by Carter Wrenn, Talking About Politics, January 24, 2014.

50 years ago we declared war on poverty, spent $20.7 trillion, and lost. So now the President is trying again. Only this time he’s calling it a war on income inequality because a war on poverty only appeals to folks who are poor while a war on income inequality appeals to just about everyone except, maybe, Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.

Now you’d think the President would start by attacking the root causes of the income inequality. But politics doesn’t work that way. Because what politicians are interested in is votes – and taking money from one group of folks and giving it to another is a proven plan that works at the ballot box. But like a lot of modern politics it does little to fix the root of the problem.

The other day in the newspaper Robert Rector reported there are now 80 means-tested welfare programs that take $916 billion from one group of folks and give it to 100 million other folks. Despite that poverty rates haven’t dropped but, on the other hand, poverty is not what it used to be. Today, our typical poor soul lives in a house or apartment in good repair with air-conditioning and cable TV that is larger than the house of an average non-poor soul in France, England or Germany. He has a car, TVs and a DVD player. There’s a fifty-fifty chance he has a computer. A one in three chance he has a big flat screen TV. And, thankfully, a big majority of today’s poor are not undernourished and didn’t endure a day of hunger over the previous year.

Still, no one doubts there are still people who need a helping hand – which led Mr. Rector to a surprising fact: Fifty-one years ago, the year before we declared war on poverty, 6% of America’s children were born out of wedlock. Today 41% of our children are born out of wedlock. Now, why on earth should a child’s mother and father not marrying make a farthing’s difference when it comes to how much a child earns when he (or she) grows up?

The answer’s a mystery but statistics don’t lie and they say children raised in single parent homes are four times more likely to be poor, and children who grow up without a father at home are 50% more likely to be poor when they grow up.

It sounds illogical but the numbers say more traditional families mean less poverty. But for a politician in pursuit of votes that turns a simple political opportunity into a knotty intellectual problem.

One more fact: Today when a mother on welfare has the good fortune to fall in love with a man who has a job and marries him she loses her benefits. Now, in a way, that’s logical. But if you’re a single mother who may be losing, say, $10,000 in benefits it’s also 10,000 reasons not to marry the man of your dreams.

Read More NC SPIN >>

January 25, 2014 at 11:18 am
Norm Kelly says:

So, the facts are that lib programs actually DO NOT work. A conclusion that doesn't take rocket science to figure out.

Once again, the stats show that lib programs actually perpetuate themselves and perpetuate the problem that created the situation in the first place.

Over 20TRILLION dollars stolen from one group of people to GIVE to another group of people, and the situation is WORSE than when we started. What is the lib prescription to fix this situation? MORE OF THE SAME. More failed policies need to be put in place, with larger budgets of course. MORE money needs to be stolen from one group, so MORE money can be given to another group. And the receiving group is actually growing!

So this begs the same old question. Libs, what are you going to propose that's different from what you've been doing for the past 5 DECADES? If what you've done for 5 DECADES hasn't worked, how do you expect I'm going to believe that your failed ideas will succeed if I just let you steal a little bit more money? Why is it that I should believe if the central planners are allowed to set wages, income levels for every person, every job in the country, this socialist idea has any more chance of succeeding than any of your prior socialist ideas?

Show us where in the world, anywhere in the world, that your socialist ideas have been implemented where they have had the desired effect. There are multitudes of examples of socialism around the world for you to examine. Show us just 1 example that proves your socialist ideas have even the slightest, most insignificant chance of success.

I don't look good in blue, so I won't hold my breath while you good libs try to find an example.

Can conservatives show ANY examples of how limited central government interference is successful? Yes. The history of the US before libs started implementing their socialist ideas back in the 20's & 30's. Especially prior to Johnson's new deal. When it comes to income inequality, another socialist idea latched onto by Demons, show us how much better it is in socialist countries so we know your ideas here have even a slim chance of success. If it's good, you can find examples of where it has actually worked.