Are We Really Helping the Poor?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/12/anti-poverty-programmes?zid=301&ah=e8eb01e57f7c9b43a3c864613973b57f

There has constantly been debates on whether or not anti-poverty programmes are actually helping the poor. The article, “Are We Helping the Poor?” published in 2013 goes into detail on the main debates people have over assistance programmes which prove how poverty statistics have been wrong for several years. It is shared that “[S]tatistics using the official poverty measure do not provide an accurate picture of poverty or the role of government policies in combating poverty,” by Columbia University researchers Christopher Wimer and Liana Fox. There is proof that these government assistance programmes reduce poverty by about 40% since 2010 based on the US Census Bureau. However, this is solely based on studies conducted but where is this information coming from? And how come there hasn’t been visible improvement on the poverty struggles of millions of the poor living in the United States?

Based on the Columbia University Research there has been a decline in child poverty and amongst those in deep poverty but where is the proof of this and how was this study/research conducted? The reason I chose this article was because it made me question the reliability of the research published. Mr. Drum (an impressive figure) stands within my same thoughts. He states that ‘While poverty among the elderly has fallen impressively since 1967 (around the time Medicare was introduced), the percentage of poor Americans aged 18-64 hasn't budged much. The figure dipped from 1967 to 1979, but today is right back where it was 35 years ago, at 15%.” The poverty problem hasn’t improved. Government assisted programs, in my opinion, do help families support but these families are stereotyped for it and these programmes do not get these families out of poverty, its only a way of helping maintain the home under certain circumstances.

Mr. Alhert also believes that this study is flawed and argues that “Welfare benefits will dampen some recipients' drive to seek employment, whether they are technically impoverished or not,” because welfare programs can give more financial help than actually having a job. The anti-poverty problem is a continuous cycle. There are those that believe that these programs do help, and I believe this too. However, certain programs can only help a family so much and do not allow them to get out of poverty without having more resources of getting a proper job in order to maintain a household. Some of those impoverished cannot get a job because they do receive more financial help by not having one which allows them to take care of their children and do much more during the day. However, this is going to be the same routine for them. They have no other opportunities for a brighter and more secure future. So this leads me back to the question of whether or not we are helping the poor with government anti- poverty programs which include social welfare and others. The research conducted by Columbia University states that it has but in all honesty, I feel that it has only left the poor in a deeper poverty trap than they were before. The research does not take into consideration other factors that affect poverty rates in the United States. There should be a system that deliberately tries to increase the amount of those impoverished seeking employment in order to live above the poverty line in the United States.