What did the government in the 1960's define poverty as?
85190
Everything you need to know is in the link.
432314
Poverty is the main problem. What follows is lack of education, utilities, medical care, food and all the other things we take for granted. It also opens the company up to dictators who, with a little money and power, can control the weakened population and keep them surpressed.\n\nThe Asian countries are great examples but Africa, Russia , Mexicon and Cuba also are models of what can happen when there are long histories of poverty and surpression. We have so much to protect and be thankful for in America.
1059450
Truman was in power to begin with and almost let the poor people starve to death during the depression.\nI am 63 and my Mother told me that during the depression the poor people almost starved to death. She and her family were poor and so were her friends and extended family , so she knows.\nAfter being elected Franklin D Roosevelt, whose family was extremely wealthy, but still had the soul to recognize that the working poor was treated very very bad and the wealty were treated extremely well.\nHe then created social security, and created the CCC's that gave jobs to those who could not find one. He was probably the first president that cared about the working poor and other less fortunates in this country. \nToo bad George Bush is attempting to undo all the good Roosevelt accomplished. George Bush is ONLY concerned about power and money and the people that have it.
873602
Yes, but... what kind of question is that? It depends on your definition of "subsistence level". But OK, one of the most commonly quoted  indicators, based on World Bank statistics, is the number of people who survive on less than two dollars a day. About half of the world's population have to do that - so 50% or your point C.
119064
The Brookings Institute did a great study called Work and Marriage: The Way to End Poverty and Welfare by Ron Haskins and Isabel V. Sawhill. September 2003.  Some of the ideas they had were really great.  They said that by increasing the numbers of hours that people living under the poverty line worked to 30 hours the poverty level is lowered from 13% to 7.5%.  This plan did allow for people living under the poverty line to pursue higher education instead of work, which lowered poverty 1.9%. They also said by giving incentives for people living under the poverty line to marry, that decreased the percent of people living in poverty another 3.5%.  Lastly, limiting the benefits to 2 children lowered the poverty level another 1.7%.  All four of these things together lowered poverty 9.3% from 13% to 3.7%.  Where doubling welfare benefits only lowered poverty by 1.1%.  The study also listed benefit to these programs.  For example, the money spent on these programs would be recouped in tax dollars earned from the new taxable income that is created by the 30 hours of work that people formerly living under the poverty would be performing.  They also cited an increase in public approval that tax payer would have for paying for programs that encourage work instead of discouraging it, as the current system does.  The article was very interesting and has some very good ideas.  Although people who prefer living off government handouts may not like it, a hand-up or a helping hand is always better then a handout.  I am a single mother who has used various government assistance (such as daycare assistance, Pell Grants, Medicaid, and WICK) to earn a bachelors degree and move my son and I out from under the poverty line.  The money that tax payers and the government spent helping me is definitely paying off, as now I am a hard working, taxpaying citizen. Unfortunately, I believe I am in the minority.
43757
Sometime in the 1960's when they were granted the right to vote and considered "people"
449619
Those who live in conditions of poverty lack a wide range of economic and other resources and may be described as "poor" or "impoverished". Some see the term as subjective and comparative, others see it as moral and evaluative, while others consider that it is scientifically established.\n\n__________________________________\n\nMany different factors have been cited to explain why poverty occurs. No single explanation has gained universal acceptance.\n\nGo to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty to fin links to statistics and more information!
731761
Not many for the majority of people. Most were poor, ill fed and led short lives.
1085507
Hunger and poverty will always be around, but their burden can be lessened significantly.  While we cling to our faith that government will deliver us, provided that we let ourselves be taxed to death, no great dent can be put in the global issues of poverty and hunger.  \nWelfare and foreign aid do nothing but give harmful bureaucracies more and more power to abuse.  Such programs look good, but they create a system of force: govt steals from us, calling it compassion, making us victims who "gave at the tax office" and perpetuates a dependency on legalised theft.  That is not "social responsibility"!  This is a perversion of the concept of compassion, of charity, but as long as we trust religion and/or government to rescue us, there is no real help for the poor.  \n\nCompassion, NOT compulsion.  http://www.bureaucrash.com/
805221
It is true that more than half of the population is under poverty. What we have to make is to provide them the essential commodities at cheaper rate. Most of them should be provided 'pay for work' jobs as per Minimum wages Act. The health facilities and educational facilities shall be provided as nearer as to them. To supply them the essential commodities at cheaper rate, we have either to produce more the items listed as essential commodities or to import at cheaper rate as a welfare measure. Govt. should take all steps to control the inflation rate. It is a wonder that nowadays inflation rate is almost static but the rates of certain commodities are getting doubled/tripled.\n\nIf all these are provided to the population beneath the poverty line, somehow we will be successful in fighting 'poverty' in India.
249688
People were poor because of the Great Depression.
241620
Poverty means going without the essentials.  Some people don't have food, clothing, indoor plumbing, running water, heat, reliable transportation, etc.
313196
I assume you mean the poverty women experience AFTER a divorce?  I am currently reading material covering this question in order to complete a correspondence course on the History of the Family in America from BYU.  From the text: Domestic Revolutions: A Social History of American Family Life*  Ch. 10 pg.216 Quoting from the topic, The Femininzation of Poverty\n   "Today families headed by women are four and a half times as likely to be poorer than families headed by males. Teenagers who have children out of wedlock are seven times more likely to be in poverty. Although female-headed families constitute only 15% of the U.S. population, they account for 50% of the poor population. Teenagers and women in their early twenties who bear illegitimate children constitute a large segment of the population that remains poor and dependent on welfare for long periods of time." \n  Same ch. pg227   "...Economic disruption is the most ovvious consequence of a divorce. In the immeadiate aftermath of a divorce, the income of the divorced woman and her children falls sharply, by 73% in the year following divorce, while the father's income rises by 42%. \nAdding to financial pressures facing the children of divorce is the fact that a majority of divorced men evade court orders to support their children. Recent surveys indicate that only 40% of support orders are fully complied with during the first year after a divorce and that by the tenth year after seperation, the figure falls to 13%."\n  * This text was written by: Steven Mintz & Susan Kellogg, \nPub. 1988 by THE FREE PRESS, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. NY. NY    ISBN 0-02-921291-X\n   Good luck with your paper!!
987562
true .it cannot be wiped out but it  be reduced to a very great extent.the best way out of poverty alleviation is to enable those facng poverty to tale up activities that would improve their lot economicaly rather than food aids or debt cancellations
430140
The Great Depression of the late 20's and 30's was felt in all western industrialised nations. Nations that were mainly agrarian (based on agriculture) were little affected by it. Here, in Australia, (I'm guessing that you are in the USA) we had most of the workforce unemployed, businesses bankrupt, starvation and poverty rampant - as did all industrialised countries. Now that governments realise that it isn't all that important to balance the budget, they can start to spend, reduce tax or reduce interest rates (use methods to stimulate spending) if they see the economy heading down. These tools stimulate spending and give the economy a boost.heading that way.
425303
The laws of the 1960 help race relations because finally the mainly white ruling class of our government heard the cries of  injustice and acted to help its citizens. The laws made it a policy that the US would no longer treat a portion of its citizen as second class forcing the culture to adapt as well.
928776
Check out this Wikipedia article:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle .  Your answer is there.  \n\nAs a side note:  When people think of the Jungle, they think how hard it is for poor people to survive in an Industrial economy that uses them.  During the Great Depression, the government began providing social programs to help the poor and needy to find jobs and support their families.