Poverty In The 1960's

In the 1960’s, the United States plumed in an economic way! About twenty percent of the United States’ population lived under the poverty line. The 1960’s focused on structural poverty and culture of poverty. Structural poverty represented various failures of the economic system, and cultural of poverty focused on the idea of there being deeply entrenched social and financial habits. When many of the people thought about War on Poverty, it tied into Lyndon B. Johnson and the sixties. With Johnson’s Office of Economic Opportunity also known as the OEO, he thought that it would be a way to help. At the beginning of the War on Poverty it seemed to very popular and many supported it but it also had it drawdowns. The criticism came along with some
people viewing the War on Poverty as a way people could slack off and not work and basically take free handouts. In the first reading, “The Failure of the Welfare State” written by Allen J. Matusow, he agrees very strongly with that point.
Matusow said that President Johnson’s idea was controversial. Instead of being controversial maybe it could be considered as spoon feeding people. The title speaks for itself on how Marusow feels. Marusow believed that the way Johnson was doing things were completely wrong. There was a huge question to this day that is still questionable; what exactly is poverty and what is living in poverty consist of. The government gave a brief definition of what the poverty definition should be. If a family could not maintain a decent family living, they were when making $3,000 or less, then they are considered to be poor. That comment brings up something that questions that. So if a family were decent and had everything they NEEDED to survive but no wants because they rather save their money on more important things does that consider them to be poor even though they were making $3,000 or less a year.
Marusow made a point that does not seem to be very valid; he said if the government took no special need to help the people that was considered to be poor, the amount of people living under the poverty line would decrease. If people who were barley living above the poverty line and they had more bills to pay they wouldn’t have the extra money from what the government would be paying for. Marusow also speaks about a “moving poverty line.” That idea ties into the next idea of yesterday’s luxury is today’s necessity. Someone could not afford something that is actually a luxury but they get it anyway. Since everyone starting to get the same thing the line changes and the people way above the poverty line will always be some steps ahead getting the next new thing. With Mausow feeling one way, Michael B. Katz felt the complete opposite. Katz seeing Johnson’s idea as being helpful to the poor people.
Katz said that we’ve fought a war against poverty, but we did not come on top against the fight.
Property and savings were important to the elderly, but many of the elderlies didn’t make enough money to be able to save. This would of course be a big problem. If they didn’t have any money saved up and could not work anymore, it would be hard for them to stay up on their bills and pay medical bills so Katz viewed Medicare as a plus spite what Marusow viewed it as. Elderly people of course would end up having to stop working because they’ve became too old and could not move and do all of the things they could have done before. They then fall under the poverty line because they can’t work to make money like they did before. So Katz saw welfare and other government assistance to helping out the other people that could not work because of old age or even being permanently disabled. Because elderly people could barely pay their bills to have a place to stay housing was a way to help. He also made a point when he said food stamps reduced hungry. There were many families barley making it not being able to buy food to feed their families because they had to pay home bills so they wouldn’t become homeless! In today’s times many people see government assistance as helping some people but others also see it as people taking advantage of the lending
hand.