I’m not sure I agree with your broad definition of anti poverty programs. Certainly they may have a benefit of helping people avoid poverty but that is not their primary purpose…like Walmart.
You are absolutely correct in that it is very easy to slip into poverty. It is also relatively easy to escape it in this country. The Brookings Institute identified 3 factors that one needs to follow to avoid poverty. 1. Graduate HS. 2. Get married after age 21 and have kids AFTER you are married. 3. Secure a Full Time job. Doing these 3 things gives an American a 74% chance of being middle class and ethnicity or race does not impact this number. I would add…. Don’t get addicted to anything, don’t break the law, buy medical insurance. Doing this will likely help you avoid returning to poverty for the majority of people.
Poverty absolutely causes problems. Certainly society has a vested interest in preventing poverty. There are two general schools of thought on the best way to do this. One involves giving things to people so that they can meet basic needs, the other involves creating opportunity for people so that people can meet their individual needs according to their own goals.
please look at a graph of poverty levels since 1966. They fluctuate little between 12 and 15% of the population. This considers numerous economic booms, recessions, democrats, republicans, policies coming and policies going. the % of people in poverty changes very little. I imagine if one cuts a program that gives someone a fish, they will likely get hungry in the short term causing the number of people hungry to increase. However if they have the ability to fish, they will soon return to the numbers of those who are not hungry unless their opportunity has been limited or removed.
I do not mean to say that ALL charity programs need to be eliminated. I support all programs that focus on 3 groups made up of those who can not provide for themselves…Children, the elderly and the disabled. I would never support cutting these programs. All others should be short term in duration and have a “helping hand” goal instead of a prolonged sustenance goal.
I would contend that if one can’t come up with $50 to $100 once per year to get a medical checkup, one needs to re-examine their priorities. We all know these are a small sample of people. How about instead of passing a law that everyone must buy insurance, we pass a law that everyone must get an annual medical checkup. Problem solved? Having insurance does not guarantee an individual addresses the problem you cite. this does. Would you support it?
I think the argument the Rep is trying to make is that unless there is a will to not be in poverty and a desire to take the sometimes tough steps to escape poverty, it will always exist. He is correct in this.
I do agree with you that there are society benefits to eliminating poverty. My contention and seemingly backed up by decades of history is that regardless of the amount of money, the Federal Government is profoundly bad at accomplishing this. In fact I believe if you took the total dollars spent on anti poverty programs annually, they could simply write a check to each person in poverty sufficient to bring them above the poverty line thus completely eliminating poverty each year. They don’t so clearly eliminating poverty is not the goal of these programs. Making people more comfortable in poverty is….as long as they keep voting.