Green Helping Green

Once a cliched "foolhead" formula to help the economy and fight against the war on poverty may now be able the key to combating America's eminent economic downfall. In Travis Eubanks' article "Economic Benefits from legalizing marijuna will cause Interest" he explains things like how when Colorado legalized green leafy dope they made One Million dollars profit in one day...5 mil in a week, they're projected to make $70 mil in 2014 just imagine what the numbers would look like if all of America legalized leafy green dope. Eubanks also states that according to Harvard University studies US law enforcement would save 8.7 billion yearly because the police departments wouldn't have to use expenses dealing with green smelly leafy dope related crimes. New jobs would be created with legalization as would saved money to do more for those in poverty. A new age America is coming and I definitely see green dopey dope in its future. http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/eubanks-economic-benefits-from-legalizing-marijuana-will-draw-interest/article_62bfa21c-7d8f-11e3-96b9-0019bb30f31a.html

The War on Poverty

"Who's poor in America? 50 years into the war on poverty" written by Drew Desilver, who is a senior writer at the Pew Research Center, states that Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to urge “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” It continues to say that "the War on Poverty, as the set of social programs enacted in 1964-1965 came to be called, was arguably the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the Great Depression." It has been argues before if whether of not Johnson's programs for antipoverty helped people, or "trapped them into cycles of dependency", or possibly both. The Census Bureau has calculated that since 1964 to 2012 the poverty rate has only decreased 4%. A team of researches from Columbia University also calculated an "anchored supplemental measure which adjusted for historical inflation and they found that it decreased 10% from 1997 to 2012. Although, either way it is calculated, it is not a significant amount. The graph that is given in the article shows that today's poor age population is mainly in their prime working years, much fewer elderly are poor since 1966, and today's childhood poverty is still persistent. It also states that, poverty is still largest in the south and even though it has fallen among blacks, it has risen among Hispanics.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/13/whos-poor-in-america-50-years-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/

War on Poverty

In the article, "A New Direction in the War on Poverty" by Paul Ryan, Ryan describes a fight between two girls at a local lower class high school that was only broken up because on of the advisors had been called to the scene. Most of these advisors have grown up in or around gangs and they have seen violence firsthand. Ryan says that "In the two years since the program started, suspensions at Pulaski High are down by 60%" and that the "daily attendance is up by nearly 10%". Ryan says that America has been spending way to much money on useless things that don't work such as "extra police, security measures, and staff" instead of focusing on what's important; the kids and the kind of situations that they are exposed to. He believes that instead of paying so much money for extra security and man power, we should instead focus on giving them an outlet to share their problems and seek help. He says the explanation is quite simple; "Poverty isn't just a form of deprivation; it's a form of isolation. Crime, drugs and broken families are dragging down millions of Americans. On every measure from education levels to marriage rates, poor families are drifting further away from the middle class". Ryan also acknowledges that this problem is not going to go away over night but instead mentions that "the question isn't whether we should do more or less of the same. It is which new direction will work best."

War on Poverty

The article, “A Global Perspective on America's ‘War on Poverty’ “ by Anne Goddard and Olu Johnson  discusses early on that we can never truly "win the war on poverty" because we do not know what that victory actually looks like. The article points out that obviously the numbers show great progress, especially in senior citizens but that does not by any means we have won the war on poverty. For example, "16.7 million children live in what the government terms 'food insecure' households, according to Olu Johnson of United Way. The number of people living in poverty, in the world however has dropped 80 percent since 1976 according to The National Bureau of Economic Research. Johnson also explains that “there are a number of factors that have contributed to this upward movement. To start, the global economy has improved generally over time, giving developed nations a greater capacity and willingness to commit official development assistance. Historically, external private investment also runs higher during periods of prosperity. And developing countries themselves have been able to leverage the benefits of a strong global economy to raise living standards internally.” These factors are based heavily on how developed a country is and how willing its citizens are to participate in fixing the issue.

Everything You Need to Know About the War on Poverty

On January 8th, 2014, Dylan Matthews wrote an article for the Washington Post. This article titled "Everything You Need to Know About the War on Poverty" gives us a brief summary on seven questions on the War on Poverty. What is the War on Poverty? The War on Poverty is a set of initiatives that were proposed by Lyndon B Johnson and passed by congress in 1964 that were supposed to end poverty in the United States. The War on Poverty included four pieces of legislation including The Social Security Amendments of 1965, The Food Stamp Act of 1964, The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and The Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These pieces of legislation are resonsible for medicare, medicaid, social security benefits, food stamps, work-study programs and more. Many programs are still in place today. Recent studies show that government involvement has actually decreased poverty fro 26 percent to 16 percent. Matthews believes there is more that we can do to further decrease poverty. The URL to this article is below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/08/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-war-on-poverty/

War on Poverty

This article is useful because it gives the reader different backgrounds about how the war on poverty started. It also gives different outlooks from presidents like Obama to economists. It’s broad perspective helps the article not to come off as biased. The article is authoritative because it uses examples from Lyndon B. Johnson and qualified specialists. This makes his article more credible and have a greater authority. At the end, the article can be a bit biased however because it leans towards a more optimistic approach and theme, he gives a more ideological insight than putting the blame directly on someone. It communicates by using academic language and makes it relatable to the reader. I also like this article because it gives a more rounded approach when responding the war on poverty topic since it is something that involves many different factors. The writing can compare to past experiences and it can enlarge the view the readers have on the war on poverty.

War on Poverty Is a Mixed Bag

"The poverty rate has fallen only to 15 percent from 19 percent in two generations, and 46 million Americans live in households where the government considers their income scarcely adequate." Annie Lowery laid out the harsh truth about the progress of the war on poverty since Lyndon B. Johnson declared the war 50 years ago. The poor are at a record high and many are using government programs such as food stamps just to get by. It has been greatly argued that programs to help the poor are only making the problem worse instead of eliminating it. Republicans would rather spend money to create opportunities and jobs for less-fortunate people, while Democrats believe in creating more safety nets for the poor.  However, even though things seem to still be bad, there are many indicators that show things have improved. Malnutrition has almost completely vanished, the number of college graduates continues to increase exponentially, and infant mortality rates have dropped. Lowery uses detailed research and multiple sources to help convey her point. She is a credible source since she is not biased and shows both sides of the argument. By giving the Democratic and Republican views on poverty, she takes a neutral stance which allows the reader to decide for themselves whose right. The tone and language she uses throughout her article make it easy to understand, while still being very professional. It made it pleasant to read and was educational to someone who doesn't have a very detailed knowledge of the war on poverty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/50-years-later-war-on-poverty-is-a-mixed-bag.html?_r=0

How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts)

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/01/the-successful-war-on-poverty-in-four-charts.html

The article "How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts)” by John Cassidy exemplifies   that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. This article was published by The New Yorker on January 14^th, 2014 therefore it shows that it is a recent published article. John Cassidy uses a lot of statistics in his article such as charts to add credibility to his statements, and he also talks about how Paul Ryan said “The War on Poverty has failed” at an event held to mark the fiftieth anniversary of Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 State of the Union address. Cassidy disagrees with Paul Ryan’s argument on poverty, Ryan believes “We keep dumping money into programs we know don’t work” and Cassidy thinks otherwise.

Evaluation-Cory Booker: Building on the Success of the War on Poverty

Evaluation 

Cory Booker: Building on the Success of the War on Poverty

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303448204579338671653433800

When evaluating this news article, the main factors that stood out were "how does it communicate?" and also, "How is it authoritative?". In other words, this article  was written by a human being who as a matter of  fact did have great authority in order to speak on the topic of poverty. The author who was addressing this particular topic, Cory Booker is a senator. So therefore, what he has to say about this topic can be known as a very reliable source since he has dealt with topics like this quite frankly. Also, the communication within this news article is very formal, and very professional. The wording also makes him seem to be a very reliable source because he sounds like a very educated individual.

50 Years Later, War on Poverty Is a Mixed Bag

The article "50 Years Later, War on Poverty Is a Mixed Bag" by Annie Lowrey focuses on what the government has done to precent poverty from reaching a higher level, but also how poverty hasn't changed drastically from fifty years ago. For example, Annie states, "There is broad consensus that the social welfare programs created since the New Deal have hugely improved living conditions for low-income Americans. At the same time, in recent decades, most of the gains from the private economy have gone to those at the top of the income ladder." Both political parties have argued over what would be the best solution for the poverty rate or even better, to eliminate it. According to James P. Zijak of the University of Kentucky, "for poverty to decrease, the low-wage labor market needs to improve." "We need strong economic growth with gains widely distributed. If the private labor market won't step up to the plate, we're going to have to strengthen programs to help these people get by and survive." According to President Obama, he calls this inequality "the defining challenge of our time."While he pushes for expansion of the states Medicaid programs for for the poor, conservatives such as Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin believe that the government should focus less on the support of the poor and more so on economic job opportunities. According to economists, the poverty rate has dropped to 16 percent from 26 percent, which is where it was at around the late 1960s.One thing for certain is that high rates of poverty have been an ongoing problem in American society. Suggestions are made throughout this article as solutions to help decrease the poverty rate such as, "If Congress approved a proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from its current level of $7.25, it would reduce the poverty rate of working-age Americans by 1.7 percentage points, lifting about five million people our of poverty", according to research by Arindrajit Dube of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst."

The War On Poverty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-j-samuelson-how-we-won--and-lost--the-war-on-poverty/2014/01/12/9bf4696e-7a24-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html

In the article "How we won — and lost — the War on Poverty" by Robert J. Samuelson talk about his opinion on the War on Poverty started by president Lyndon B. Johnson. The article was published by The Washington Post on January 12th, 2014 making it a fairly recent article. In the article, Samuelson uses fairly formal language. Not necessarily academic language, but not conversational language either. He uses statistics to support his findings, ensuring that what he is saying can be backed up. Now, he is an opinion writer for the newspaper, so this informs us that it does have a bias. Throughout the article he argues for both sides on poverty: the people who support the funding for it, and the ones who don't. In the end he ends up criticizing the government for the lack of progress and that shows his bias on the subject, as well.

The War on Poverty

Paul Krugman’s NY Times article, “The War on Poverty”, dissects the complex issue of the nation’s view of Lyndon B. Johnson’s initiative to combat poverty that began in the early 1960s. Krugman asserts that since the WOP’s inception, the positions of progressives and conservatives have not changed as drastically as some might expect. Rather, the positions of these two political ideologies have been emboldened. Krugman claims that progressives have taken a firmer stand against the harsh criticism of the poor and have used the WOP as one of their winning issues. Conservatives, however, have chosen to use the risk of harming the economy to support their argument against public programs designed to help the poor, instead of referring to them as ‘lazy’ or ‘dependent’. Krugman cites the source of these subtle shifts as the change of the public view of the poor. The WOP, in its beginning, was largely thought of as a failure due to the fact that most Americans, at that time, believed that poverty was a social-individual problem, one that could be fixed with an attitude change or a brighter outlook on life. However, Krugman asserts, many critics of the WOP soon discovered that this was indeed not the case. With increasing instability of the labor market, critics of the WOP began to cite job insecurity and income inequality as the source of poverty. Krugman asserts that, overall, income inequality and the unequal availability of jobs in comparison to the richest individuals in America are the main causes of poverty. Moreover, Krugman maintains that as income inequality become more difficult to ignore, critics of the WOP, namely conservatives, inadvertently paint themselves as pompous and out of touch with reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/opinion/krugman-the-war-over-poverty.html?_r=0

The Best Case That The War On Poverty Has Failed

The article "The best case that the war on poverty has failed", by Zachary Goldfarb looks at the status of America's modern poverty, and compares it to America's poverty 50 years ago in honor of the 50th Annivarsary of "The War On Poverty" initiative launched by Lyndon B. Johnson. Goldfarb explains that the currently(as if 2012), 16% of Americans are living in poverty. Some would say that this is an improvement considering the poverty rate in 1967 when the initiative started was 26%, however, Goldfarb also explains that the current 16% would raise to 28% upon taking out Government programs such as welfare and food stamps. This means that nearly 1 in 3 people in America would be in poverty with out the help of the Goverment. When taking this into consideration, one can make a strong argument that America is in fact losing the war on poverty. Based on the statistics(with out the help of the government), we are worse off as a country when it comes to the rate of poverty as of now compared to 50 years ago.

War on Poverty: 50 Years After the War on Poverty, Poor People Are Not Better Off

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-13/50-years-after-the-war-on-poverty-poor-people-are-not-better-off

The article by Charles Kenny talked about how the official poverty line in the United States hasn’t changed much since the 1960’s. Meaning what people at or below the poverty- line could buy in the 1960’s would be similar to what people at the poverty line could buy in present day. The article also mentioned that the cost of many important services that we need today have gone up and people below the poverty line are still not able to pay for any of these things such as health care. Another thing that was mentioned was that many more poor households now own computers and microwaves than they did in previous years.

The poverty line has remained the same throughout the years, but people at the poverty line are able to better their living situations through many advances. The article also mentioned that the poverty line doesn’t account very well for technological changes or the provision of public services. Also the poverty- line doesn’t account for governmental programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, food stamps and earned income tax credit. Meaning that people at the poverty line have more access to services and programs than people did in 1963.

The War on Poverty

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-fenn/2014/02/10/obamacare-is-the-next-step-in-the-war-on-poverty

In the article “A New Front in the War on Poverty” By Peter Finn he talks about the state that our elderly used to be in and the state the elderly currently are I now poverty wise. The elderly poverty has gone down very drastically in the past few years due to the different health care bills and Medicare bills that have been passed. The elderly are being taken care of better than ever at this point. Finn talks about the importance of this new health care act and the risk that would follow if it did not go through. He claims that if we were to discontinue the Medicare and no continue to improve it with this new obamacare that we will have a lot of elderly that will go without a lot of necessities and living arrangements.

The War on Poverty is Far From Over

In “War on Poverty 50 Years on, victory nowhere in sight” by James Rosen, Rosen writes on the first idea about the “War on Poverty” when President Lyndon B. Johnson gave his first State of the Union address. This articles also talks about the underlining problem with defeating poverty. Rosen uses statistics that help make the reader understand how and why poverty is still such a huge problem. Rosen starts by talking about the beginning of the idea of war on poverty. Although the percentage of American’s in poverty have decreased from 19 percent to 15 percent, the increase of population has produced the highest number of Americans living in poverty to date, with 47 million. Rosen goes on to give more statistics on non-white Americans and their poverty percentage and high school graduation percentage. The numbers have greatly improved. However, this shows a little bias as Rosen only talks about non-white Americans. Rosen, however, does have a formal presentation and this article helps bring attention on how bad poverty really is. Rosen believes that the underlining problem for poverty is “chronic long-term unemployment and the viability of the labor market.” Rosen goes on to say that about four million Americans have been unemployed for over 26 weeks. Severe unemployment is a major problem. The statistics Rosen offers help support his argument that unemployment is one of two reasons poverty remains such a prominent issue in America. Finally, Rosen goes on say that the skilled work force has also declined. This article is useful in finding out more about the War on Poverty. Rosen’s constant use of statistics help show the damage that poverty has on America. He also gives the underlining reason why poverty remains such an issue. Although he does not give a clear answer on how to reduce the amount of Americans living in poverty, Rosen gives his readers insight on the heart of the problem. Finally, Rosen effectively uses very formal language to bring his message across. Although Rosen seems to be a little bias, his argument is valid. The War on Poverty is clearly far from over.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/08/war-on-poverty-50-years-on-victory-nowhere-in-sight/

War On Poverty

In the article “50 Years After the War on Poverty, Poor People Are Not Better Off” by Charles Kenny, he compares the poverty line in the United States to the original definition of “poverty” in 1963 and also how it had chanced between the years 2005-2008. During 1963, President Johnson started his “War on Poverty”. According to the article, the “real value of the poverty line” has remained closely the same since President Johnson but research shows this to not be completely true. Studies were conducted by the Pew Research Center and showed that large majority percentages to poor families said to have owned things such as microwaves and computers. These sorts of items were not available to families in the 60’s and did not have to spend money on these kinds of expenditures, but they still were making relatively proportional earnings and spending proportionally the same amount as families that live under the poverty line today. Meaning that although the value of the poverty line is the same, theoretically, living standards may have still improved. Kenny also states “the official poverty measure doesn’t take account of the impact of government programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, and the earned income tax credit.” This is significant because although the United States has proportionally the same amount of people living under the poverty line, the people living today are able to have a higher living standard just because of the technology that has been made accessible and the government programs that make it easier for families to make ends meet.

The article then goes on to list evidence that further proves that the citizens of the United States are at least a little more financially secure than in the 60’s. According to economist Linda Fox “poverty has declined from 19 percent to 16 percent over the past 50 years. And absent government antipoverty programs, while one-quarter of U.S. households would have been poor in 1967, fully 31 percent would have been poor today”. Although I totally support equality, and I do believe that there is much room for improvement in the American economy, I do feel that LBJ’s “War on Poverty” was successful and has helped many families today.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-13/50-years-after-the-war-on-poverty-poor-people-are-not-better-off

War On Poverty Not Over

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/coontz-war-on-poverty/index.html

In the CNN article “Why 'war on poverty' not over” by Stephanie Coontz , she depicts views of why and how the “war on poverty” doesn’t seem to be working as well as we thought, and  she also gives possible ways to fix it.  Firstly she gives background of the “War on Poverty” stating that the term was coined by Lyndon B. Jordan during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. Using a set of government programs designed to help struggling poor Americans, including measures of job training and improvement on housing. Further down Coontz gives percentages and facts to back up the claims of President Johnsons war on poverty, and though welly fought it is still losing 50 years later. As she goes on to further the claim of this lost war she hints at possibilities from other countries that the U.S. can take to fight the war in better and different ways than they have in the past. 

The War On Poverty

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gilbert-b-kaplan/the-war-on-poverty-international-trade_b_4654229.html

     In the article "The war on Poverty, International Trade, and The State Of The Union" the author Gilbert B. Kaplan talks about the limited success of the war on poverty declared 50 years ago by Lyndon B. Johnson. Kaplan talks about how International Trade has affected job loss in America using sources from groups such as the economic policy institute. He states that "The Economic Policy Institute -- calculated the jobs lost because of the China trade deficit at 2.7 million " because of this job loss Kaplan explains that it is growing harder and harder for the poor to get jobs to actually get out of poverty. Kaplan also states that "The traditional road up from poverty into the middle class -- a good long-term job in a factory -- has now been blocked. Those jobs do exist, but because of our trade policy they are not in the United States; they are in China, Vietnam and other low wage, long-hour sites." Based on these details we are currently losing the war on poverty.

War on Poverty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/19/the-best-case-that-the-war-on-poverty-has-failed/

In the article “The best case that the war on poverty has failed” by Zachary Goldfarb starts off by saying that it’s the anniversary of Lyndon Johnson’s speech in his State of the Union address. Which is where he promoted the “War on Poverty,” to give the resources needed to those who were in poverty. The chart shows that “28.7 percent of the country would be in poverty today without government policies to help them – actually higher than it was 50 years ago.” If it weren’t for the safety net of the programs given by the government many more would be in poverty today. “Millions upon millions of American’s have lived a more decent life because of taypayer support.” The chart really points out how Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” did help many American’s out of poverty, but the poverty rates have only gone up since then and the “War on Poverty” has failed.