Pragmatic Strategies for Reducing Poverty in the U S

¶ … Poverty in the United States Although many Americans believe, with good cause, that they live in the most affluent nation in the world, the harsh reality is that at $55,800, the U.S. per capita gross domestic product (GDP) ranks 19th worldwide (U.S. economy, 2016). What these figures also conceal is the fact that fully 15.1% of Americans, or approximately 48.5 million citizens (U.S. people, 2016), live below the poverty line today (U.S. economy, 2016). Therefore, despite what many Americans might otherwise believe, poverty remains a complex national problem today.

Complex problems, of course, typically require complex solutions (Ellis, 2014) and eradicating poverty in the United States is no exception. A critical analysis of these poverty rates reveals that there are several strategies available to address this nationwide problem, including vocational rehabilitation, subsidized on-the-job-training programs (O'Brien, 2009) and income redistribution through various entitlement programs (Lehmann, 2014). According to Ellis (2014), once the problem and various alternative solutions have been identified, the next step in the critical thinking process involves identifying the optimal solution.

In this regard, Ellis (2014) advise that, "After evaluating the various alternatives, select what you think is the most effective alternative for solving the problem and describe the sequence of steps you would take to act on the alternative" (p. 7). While vocational rehabilitation and subsidized on-the-job training programs such as the Workforce Investment Act have proven effective in helping some impoverished citizens become gainfully employed, there is 12-month limit on vocational training or educational courses and an overall 5-year limit on these programs that restricts their effectiveness (O'Brien, 2009).

As a result, national policymakers continue to scramble to identify optimally effective and pragmatic strategies for reducing poverty in the United States. Although many observers bristle at the suggestion of additional "entitlement programs" because the term carries some significant negative connotation baggage. For example, Lehmann (2014) points out that, "Critics of social welfare program argue that increasing federal spending on dread 'entitlements' would beggar other progressive Democratic causes, like more robust spending on the nation's aging infrastructure" (2014, p. 37).

Some analysts, however, argue that social welfare programs have been enormously effective in reducing the national poverty rate in recent years. In this regard, Lehmann emphasizes that, "Safety-net programs caused the rate of poverty in the U.S. to decrease from 26% in 1967 to 12% in 2012, and, strikingly, the expansion of protections like unemployment insurance after the 2008 economic meltdown prevented a significant uptick in poverty" (2014, p. 37).

Notwithstanding these impressive results, critics of social welfare programs maintain that they fly in the face of the guidance contained in the ancient adage, "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" (cited in McCoy, 2010, p. 46). Such criticisms, though, ignore the fundamental differences that Americans face in their lives depending on their social and economic status. For affluent Americans who have enjoyed lives free of want and.