Outline: Government Budgeting, A Pictorial Overview

1. Budgeting
• Household Budget
• 2016's Federal Budget Summary
• Strategies for a Balanced Budget
• Map of the USA
• Changing USA Landscape, Part 1 of 2
• Changing USA Landscape, Part 2 of 2
2. Revenue
• 2016's Federal Revenue
3. Spending
• 2016's Federal Spending: Mandatory
• 2016's Federal Spending: Discretionary
4. The USA Federal Budget
• 2016's Federal Budget
• 2016's Federal Budget Snapshot
5. Annual Deficit or Surplus
• Deficit Outlook
6. The Ongoing USA Federal Government Debt
• Debt Outlook
• Breakdown of 2017's Federal Debt
• Major Foreign Holders of U.S. Treasury Securities by Amount and Country as of Fiscal Year 2017
7. Operating the USA Government
• Scope of USA Government
• Budgetary Operations of USA Government
8. Size of the USA Economy: The Gross Domestic Product
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Real Gross Domestic Product Time Series
• Federal Spending as a Percentage of GDP
• Federal Deficits as a Percentage of GDP
• Federal Debt as a Percentage of GDP
9. Budgeting Revisited: Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Mismanagement
• Examples of Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and Mismanagement
• 2016's Federal Budget Summary
• 115 Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2017 to 2026
• Deficit Reduction Strategies
10. Income and Poverty in the USA: Age, Gender, and Race
• USA's Population Count as of Year
• USA's 2014 Population Estimate by Race
• Median Household Income in the USA
• Household Income and Age
• Household Income and Gender
• Household Income and Race
• Poverty in the USA: An Overview
• USA's Measurements of Poverty
• USA Poverty Lines for a Family of Four
• USA Poverty Rate and Count
• Poverty and Age
• Poverty and Gender
• Poverty and Race
• Poverty and Region
• USA Federal Government Anti-Poverty Measures
• Anti-Poverty Program Participation
• Lifting the Veil of Ignorance
11. World Poverty, Upheaval, Turmoil, and Strife
12. A Billion Galaxies and A Trillion Stars but One Earth, One Atmosphere, and One Race—The Human Race

---

Please visit related page:

• http://bruessard.info/rule-of-law.html

1. Budgeting

Government budgeting is not too different from household budgeting. In the case of household budgeting, you have income and expenses. The primary source of most household income comes from holding a full-time job. On the one hand, if your household income exceeds your household expenses, then you have a surplus. The surplus typically is invested in some type of financial instrument (such as a savings account or certificate of deposit account). If, on the other hand, your household expenses exceed your income, then you have a shortage.

How does a household cope with a shortage? There are three basic strategies that a household is most likely to pursue:

1. Increase its income to match its expenses (say, by taking a second job)
2. Reduce its expenses (say, by cutting back certain types of consumption)
3. A combination of both, that is, by increasing its income and reducing its expenses

The monthly routine of a household balancing its budget represents one aspect of household finance. The following household budget example depicts the household's budget for the month of January only. In the example below, for January, the household earned $3,500 in income and incurred $3,486 in expenses. Its net surplus for the month of January was $14. All was good. The household's budget was sound.

Personal Household Budget

Photo Credit: Microsoft Office Templates

Moving up the ladder of complexity, besides personal finance, there also is non-profit finance, government finance, and corporate finance. The purpose of this page is to take a cursory and pictorial look at government finance. This page specifically focuses on USA federal government finance. A general perception is that, in many instances, the USA government exercises or wields lackadaisical control over its finances. Allegations are commonplace of USA federal government financial waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement of the money it collects from taxpayers and from the money it borrows. This page takes a look at some instances of government financial waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.

The next graphic summarizes the USA's budget for fiscal year 2016 (that is, October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016). At a high level, the graphic shows that the USA government planned to spend $3.9 trillion dollars but only planned to collect $3.3 trillion dollars. The deficit therefore was $600 million dollars. The USA government needed to borrow $600 million dollars to cover its budgetary shortfall. All, therefore, was not good with the USA budget.

2016's Federal Budget Summary

Photo Credit: Government Budgeting: A Pictorial Overview

Strategies for a Balanced Budget

Photo Credit: Edward E. Bruessard

Map of the USA

Photo Credit: Nonbank Mortgage Servicers

Changing USA Landscape, Part 1 of 2

Photo Credit: Our Changing Landscape

Changing USA Landscape, Part 2 of 2

Photo Credit: Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060

2. Revenue

In the case of government budgeting, you have revenue and spending. The primary source of government revenue comes from collecting taxes. In turn, the tax money is used to provide citizens with a wide array of public and private goods and services either directly or indirectly (namely, through private contracting). Whenever government revenue exceeds spending, then there is a budgetary surplus.

The next graphic provide a more detailed breakdown of the $3.3 trillion dollars that the USA government planned to collect according to its 2016 budget.

2016's Federal Revenue

Photo Credit: Government Budgeting: A Pictorial Overview

3. Spending

The next graphic provide a more detailed breakdown of the $3.9 trillion dollars that the USA government planned to spend according to its 2016 budget. As shown by the next two graphics, USA spending has a mandatory component and a discretionary component.

2016's Federal Spending: Mandatory

Photo Credit: Mandatory Spending in 2016

2016's Federal Spending: Discretionary

Photo Credit: Discretionary Spending in 2016

4. The USA Federal Budget

The USA federal budget is based on the fiscal year, which begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the year following (as contrasted to the calendar year, which begins on January 1 and ends on December 31 of the same year). The actual year of the fiscal year is named after the year the budget ends. This page, for the most part, focuses on the USA government's budget for the 2016 fiscal year. The budget for fiscal year 2016 was proposed by President Barack Obama to run the government from October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016.

The next two graphics provide another view of the USA government's budget for fiscal year 2016:

2016's Federal Budget

Photo Credit: The Federal Budget in 2016

2016's Federal Budget Snapshot

Photo Credit: Edward E. Bruessard

The USA Budget Process

Photo Credit: Budget of the U.S. Government | USAGov

5. Annual Deficit or Surplus

When government spending exceeds revenue, then there is a budgetary deficit. Whereas household budgets typically are balanced on a monthly basis, government budgets typically are structured for balancing on an annual or yearly basis.

The following table and graphic provide an overview of annual USA government budget surpluses and deficits from 1997 to 2017. The table and graphic show that the USA government experienced annual budgetary surpluses from 1998 through 2001 (under USA President Bill Clinton's leadership). All other years from 1997 to 2017 constituted annual budgetary deficits.

TABLE: Historical USA Budgets

Deficit Outlook

Photo Credit: An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027

6. The Ongoing USA Federal Government Debt

When annual budgetary deficits are carried over from one year to the next, then the accumulated amount carried over represents the USA debt. The next table depicts cumulative USA debt from the years from 2000 through 2017. As of 2017, the USA debt stood at $20 trillion dollars.

USA National Debt Live

TABLE: Historical USA Debt

Table Credit: Historical Debt Outstanding

Government debt financing per se is not a bad thing if the outcome of temporarily incurring debt obligations eventually will lead to a net benefit for society (for example, increased tax revenues). Two of the better known examples of successful debt financing would be the USA's response to the Great Depression of 1929 and the USA-sponsored Marshall Plan of 1948 for rebuilding Western European in the aftermath of World War II. Government debt also tends to rise during wartime. Government debt financing sometimes is used as a tool to stimulate economic activity when the economy has become stagnant. At the household level, perhaps one of the most well-known examples of successful household debt financing would be to acquire a mortgage to purchase a home.

Debt Outlook

Photo Credit: Schedules of Federal Debt

Breakdown of 2017's Federal Debt

Photo Credit: America's Fiscal Future - Federal Debt

The table below shows that $6.181 trillion of U.S. securities were held by foreign entities as of fiscal year 2017 (October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017). Mainland China was the largest holder of U.S. securities with a 20.06% share at $1.24 trillion. According to the graphic immediately above, overall, foreign entities hold roughly 39% of total U.S. debt.

Table Credit: Major Foreign Holders of U.S. Treasury Securities by Amount and Country as of June 30, 2017

The problem with debt financing arises when the national debt continues to mount with no indication whatsoever that it ever will get repaid. Much like a household who has reached the maximum borrowing limit on all of its credit cards, there comes a point where the household hits a financial crisis point. When a household financial crisis occurs, the household simply does not earn enough money to cover all of its debt obligations. What is the household to do? Does it seek the assistance of a professional debt counselor? When a household's exceeds its financial ability to repay the debt, their last recourse would be to file for bankruptcy. However, all kinds of adverse ramifications could result when households file for personal bankruptcy. One of the most severe ramifications could be an inability of the bankrupt household to borrow money or to gain access to credit—and jobs and places to live—in the regular economy. Prospective employers and apartment owners sometime check the applicants' credit history when making a decision to approve or decline the applicant. Households who file for bankruptcy often are viewed negatively by prospective creditors. If a household who has filed for bankruptcy is successful at borrowing money or obtaining credit, households with less than stellar credit histories can expect to pay higher interest rates due to their lower credit ratings and their higher risk of non-payment. Lenders and creditors are in the business to make a profit, not to lose money.

Much like a household who has over-extended itself in debt, it is possible for governments, too, to over-extend themselves in debt. Eventually, the government would reach a point whereby it will not be able to borrow enough money to cover all of its debt obligations. The consequences are even more dire when governments default on re-paying their debts. Their ability to borrow money becomes severely constrained, and the interest rate paid is higher in exchange for the borrowed funds. As a general rule of thumb, lenders are extremely reluctant to loan debt defaulters additional money because lenders do not wish to take a loss. Without money to pay for the basic goods and services provided by the government (for example, Medicare and Social Security to name a couple), citizens are placed in a predicament and a financial bind. Without their social security payments, for instance, some citizens potentially would become homeless. Without Medicare coverage, for instance, some citizens would become ill and die avoidable deaths due to lack of medical care.

How does the government cope with a deficit? Again, there are three basic strategies—raise taxes to increase the amount of revenue collected, reduce expenditures (say, by scaling back and eliminating some governmental activities), or a combination of raising taxes and cutting expenses. The problem with balancing the budget reduces to political choices. While realizing that the budget needs to be balance, nobody seems to want to make the sacrifice to have his or her taxes raised or to have his or her favorite government program(s) cut or eliminated.

7. Operating the USA Government

The administrative costs incurred to operate the three branches of the USA federal government should not be overlooked or exempted when it comes to financial prudence and efficiency. Government operations also should be scrutinized or examined more carefully for cost-reduction opportunities. The next two images provide an outline of how the USA government is structured and financed.

Scope of USA Government

Photo Credit: Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 Consolidated Financial Statements of the U.S. Government

Budgetary Operations of USA Government

Photo Credit: Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 Consolidated Financial Statements of the U.S. Government

8. Size of the USA Economy: The Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

In a free-market, capitalistic type of economy such as the USA economy, most economic activity in society is driven by private enterprise within the private sector. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures the value of all products produced in an economy. The GDP is most commonly used to gauge whether a nation's economy is expanding or contracting. While a free-market economy generates most economic activities by private-sector businesses, both large and small, there also are public products which involve both direct and indirect government activities. Some view the public-private components of the GDP as a gauge for measuring to what extent the national economy is attributed to government activities. As government activities begin to take up a larger and larger share of overall economic activity in the nation, some view an expanding government role and influence over the economy as an unhealthy trend for the future vitality of a free-market system.

The following GDP table and graphics provide an overview the USA's GDP, in general, and the USA government's share of GDP, in particular.

TABLE: Historical USA GDP

Table Credit: Nominal and Real GDP

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Real Gross Domestic Product Time Series

Photo Credit: Nominal and Real GDP

Federal Spending as a Percentage of GDP

Photo Credit: Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 Consolidated Financial Statements of the U.S. Government

Federal Deficits as a Percentage of GDP

Photo Credit: The Federal Budget in 2016

Federal Debt as a Percentage of GDP

Photo Credit: The Federal Budget in 2016

9. Budgeting Revisited: Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Mismanagement

The budget for fiscal year 2017 was proposed by President Barack Obama. It was meant to provide and allocate money to run the government from October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017. The 2017 budget marks the end of the Obama Presidential administration and the beginning of the Trump Presidential administration. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2018 will mark the start of the first full-fiscal-year budget for President Donald Trump, and it will run from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018. Before taking effect, all proposed Presidential budgets must be adopted, approved, and funded by the USA Congress as prescribed by the USA Constitution. Sometimes the spending amounts approved and allocated by Congress vary from the President's budget recommendations. A USA President with a bold agenda potentially can accomplish big things if the President enjoys the benefit of a supportive Congress where most of its members are willing to fully finance the President's various policy initiatives—and assuming the President is pursuing sound policy initiatives. Absent the support of a cooperative Congress, a President's policy agenda is pretty much doomed notwithstanding the Presidential tool of Executive Orders.

2017's Federal Budget

Photo Credit: Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2017 Through September 30, 2017

As the USA government's debt continues to rise, there is increased political pressure to eliminate all manner of government waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. According to an article titled "'Wasteful Spending' Poll: Few Agree On What Government Waste Is, Most Want To Cut It," by Emily Swanson and Mark Blumenthal appearing in The Huffington Post, government waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement broadly could be categorized under the umbrellas of (a) Government Programs, (b) Government Inefficiency, (c) Government Pay, Travel and Perks, and (d) All Other Government Sources.

The following table is illustrative of various kinds of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement alleged to exist throughout the USA federal government. The table is not meant to be exhaustive. It does not contain more recent examples of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement throughout the USA federal government. The table merely represents one snapshot in time of federal government waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. The reader should note that I have not personally researched these 201 examples of federal government waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement as depicted in the table below. Without knowing all of the details, I personally cannot vouch for the veracity, accuracy, or reasonableness of each example presented in the table.

TABLE: Examples of Alleged USA Federal Government Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and Mismanagement of Resources

Table Credit: https://posey.house.gov/wasteful-spending/

Some also would argue that some aspects of the costs associated with USA long-term involvement in the Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria wars, too, represent a form of USA government waste. Conservative estimates put the cost of the USA government's War on Terror at $2 trillion dollars (and counting). Some more liberal estimates put the cost of the War on Terror at about $6 trillion dollars (and counting). In some instances, the money spent to prosecute the War on Terror was tantamount to little more than taking over a trillion dollars and tossing that trillion dollars into Middle Eastern sands not to mention the resultant loss of life (fatalities), injuries (casualties), and displaced families (homelessness). Broadly assume, for instance, that the sum of $6 trillion dollars spent to prosecute the War on Terrorism is a more accurate calculation of military spending and also assume that an arbitrary 10% of it got wasted, then the sum wasted would come to $600 billion dollars since the 09-11-2001 terrorist airplane attacks inside the USA through 2018. This $600 million wasted translates into about $33,333,333 million wasted in military spending per year from 2001 through 2018. In the USA, there is a great hue and cry about public assistance, social spending, welfare fraud, welfare queens, and so forth. There is hardly a whisper about the billions of dollars attributable to wasteful military spending.

The reader should keep in mind that the above illustration of wasteful military spending only applies to prosecuting the War on Terror. The USA military is legendary for awarding contracts to private industry for the production of military hardware only to witness the contract undergoing significant delays, cost overruns, and exorbitant pricing. Say, for instance, the USA military accepted a private contractor's $1 billion bid for the production of a state-of-art fighter jet airplane. By the time production of the fighter jet airplane is completed, the final contractor's bill ends up costing, say, $5 billion. This type of military contracting cost-overrun scenario happens all of the time.

By way of comparison, according to the GAO's report titled "FEDERAL LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populations and Needs," there are 82 specific federal government programs designed to relieve the burden of USA poverty for its less fortunate or low-income members. The report goes on to point out that, for the year 2013 alone, these combined 82 programs cost about $756 billion dollars. If arbitrarily 10% of this $756 billion could be attributable to fraud, then the sum wasted comes to $75,600,000 million dollars per year. This $75,600,000 million dollars wasted per year translates into a cumulative total wasted of $1,360,800,000 trillion dollars from 2001 to 2018.

The point here is not to pit the resource needs of the military against the resource needs of the poor nor is it an attempt to drive a wedge between the poor and the military. Rather, the point here is to illustrate that opportunities exist to cut costs and save money across the full spectrum of government. Whether military, anti-poverty, or any other type of government spending, when political leaders decide to go into deficit reduction mode, their first order of business should be to identify and eliminate instances of spending waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Instead of first focusing on eliminating the existence of all manners of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, all too often the traditional approach has been to cut certain government programs to the barebones regardless of harm done to the beneficiaries of these programs. In a perfect world, of course, no poverty would exist, and no military would be needed in society.

List Credit: FEDERAL LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populations and Needs

All kinds of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement are involved in running the USA government. Some of the waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement emanate within the day-to-day operations of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government. If a consensus is reached that government spending must be reduced to eliminate the federal debt, then all instances of federal spending should be scrutinized and impacted equitably. The poor should not be made to bear a disproportionate burden of the spending cuts. By the same token, if a consensus is reached that federal taxes must be increased to eliminate the federal debt, then all citizens should be impacted equitably.

The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) report titled Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2017 to 2026 offers 115 equitable recommendations to help reduce and eliminate the national debt. The report outlines 115 options either to decrease federal spending or increase federal revenues over a ten-year period. The objective of the 115 options is to put the "federal debt on a sustainable path." The following table was derived from this CBO report."

TABLE: 115 Options for Reducing the Deficit

Deficit Reduction Strategies

Photo Credit: The 2017 Long-Term Budget Outlook

10. Income and Poverty in the USA: Age, Gender, and Race

As the political pressure increases on political leaders to take steps to tackle and arrest the USA debt, there is always a temptation go after the so-called low-hanging fruit, that is to say, the poor, the politically inactive, immigrants, minorities, and those who generally do not make large monetary contributions to political campaigns. One debt reduction strategy often proposed is to make deep cuts to social-welfare programs, for example, food stamps, welfare payments, housing subsidies, and so forth. Beneficiaries of social spending often are depicted and stigmatized as "takers" who contribute little to nothing to the overall growth and vitality of the national economy.

The FRONTLINE video below offers a window into the good, bad, and ugly aspects of government spending as it pertains to housing assistance programs aimed chiefly at benefitting the poor but also meant to benefit private businesses. The video illustrates how government spending meant to accomplish a beneficial public good sometimes includes an element of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.

The traditional measure of poverty in the USA is based on income. For instance, as shown in the table below, in 2016, a family of 4 persons who earned a yearly income of $24,563 or less was deemed to be living in poverty. Similarly, a family of 8 persons who earned a yearly income of $41,781 or less was deemed to be living in poverty. These income thresholds are used as indicators of poverty by family size, and they reflect the USA's minimum living standard. As of 2016, some 40 (12.7%) million residents of the USA were deemed to be living in poverty, that is, from a total population of over 300 million residents.

The aim of various USA governmental anti-poverty programs is to raise all family units' living standards to this minimum standard if a family's yearly income falls below these poverty thresholds. All of the USA government's anti-poverty programs and measures, collectively, are known as the social safety net. The alternative to public assistance is private charity. The need for assistance almost always exceeds the ability of private charities to respond on a long-term, full-time, and consistent basis, hence, the reason for government for provision of social welfare support.

Not only do these governmental anti-poverty efforts represent the genuine generosity and compassion of the American individual and corporate taxpayers to assist their less fortunate brethrens in times of need but also these anti-poverty measures help to deter and prevent those who are desperately seeking to survive from resorting to crime and other kinds of illicit activities to obtain money. People are not stupid. If they can help it, people are not going to sit around and allow themselves to starve too death. If necessary, the less fortunate members of society will turn to the underground economy to obtain the money needed to purchase the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter—albeit the underground economy can be fraught with danger and peril.

TABLE: Historical USA Population

Table Credit: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 (as of July 1, 2017)

TABLE: USA Population Estimate by Race for Year 2014 Only

Table Credit: Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060

TABLE: Historical USA Median Income

Table Credit: Real Median Personal Income in the United States

Median Household Income in the USA

Photo Credit: Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: 2015

Household Income and Age

Photo Credit: Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: 2015

Household Income and Gender

Photo Credit: Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: 2015

Household Income and Race

Photo Credit: Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: 2015

Poverty in the USA: An Overview

Photo Credit: How the U.S. Census Bureau Measures Poverty

TABLE: Historical USA Poverty Count and Rate

Table Credit: Historical USA Poverty Counts and Rates

USA's Measurements of Poverty

Photo Credit: FEDERAL LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populations and Needs

USA Poverty Lines for a Family of Four

Photo Credit: Edward E. Bruessard

TABLE: 2016's Poverty Threshold by Family Size and Income

Table Credit: Poverty Thresholds for 2016 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years

USA Poverty Rate and Count

Photo Credit: Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: 2015

Poverty and Age

Photo Credit: Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: 2015

Poverty and Gender

Photo Credit: Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: 2015

Poverty and Race

Photo Credit: Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage: 2015

Poverty and Region

Photo Credit: Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates

USA Government Anti-Poverty Measures

Photo Credit: FEDERAL LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populations and Needs

Anti-Poverty Program Participation

Photo Credit: FEDERAL LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populations and Needs

Because the FRONTLINE video primarily focused on less fortunate black American citizens, it is only fitting at this juncture to segue into a discussion of black American poverty. There exists a general perception that the black American problem in social discipline is the primary factor impeding or holding back their economic advancement. The lack of social discipline also brings with it an attendant host of social problems. A deeply felt sentiment by some is that the socially undisciplined blacks are less deserving of governmental anti-poverty assistance—and are less prepared for integration into the mainstream of USA society for that matter. As a result, black American citizens do tend to face obstacles and barriers of resistance typically not felt by other minorities in the USA. These negative perceptions and stereotypes make opportunities for social and economic advancement much more difficult for black Americans, that is, a continuation and perpetuation of the last hired, first fired syndrome allegedly of the lesser qualified black Americans. This lack of economic opportunities does cause more blacks to seek public (government) assistance.

Blacks do share some of the blame for their present-day plight by contributing to these negative perceptions held of them by others, for instance, by too many blacks calling one another the "n" word. (The "n" word has been around for over a century. Its most recent incarnation and popularization has been its use by "gangsta" rap musicians. Before the "gangsta" rappers, it was the comedians who contributed to a perpetuation of its use in popular culture.) In reality, usage of the "n" word by black American citizens signifies an ignorance of or a lack of appreciation for their slavery history. Its usage by black American citizens also signifies a form of self-hatred to some degree in addition to its use by some younger blacks (and non-blacks) to signify a form of slang.

Less fortunate black Americans do have to endeavor to more aggressively take the self-betterment initiative in a quest to surmount or rise above a slum mentality (for instance, by overcoming the crime, robbing and stealing from others, deteriorating structures, littered streets, gangs, gunplay, nasty dispositions, violence, looting, substance abuse, and so forth, plaguing their neighborhoods). In this respect, it remains for blacks alone to "Do Yourself A Favor" (Stevie Wonder) by "Climbin' Up The Ladder" (Isley Brothers) in "The Changing Times" (Earth, Wind & Fire) of 21st-century living. One way for black Americans to climb up the ladder is for them to become more enterprising as Booker T. Washington encouraged them to do (that is to say, by becoming producers in addition to being consumers).

Another way for black Americans to climb up the ladder is for them to use their purchasing power to consume more of those products that build wealth (such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, U.S. Treasury notes, annuities, CDs, IRAs, home purchase, real estate investments, life insurance policies, entrepreneurship, and so forth, as opposed to consuming a lot of expensive clothing, fancy cars, assorted electronic gadgets, designer sneakers, flashy jewelry, and so forth). Life today is about all peoples of the Earth preparing for the future, which means letting go of the all of the bad things in life and starting to prepare to live constructively, productively, and positively in the 22nd century and beyond. The journey begins by making wise life choices. The journey for all peoples of the Earth begins by getting good educations and acquiring the skills that will allow them to prosper in civil society. Those who take education for granted possibly are setting themselves up for a formidable challenge in life in terms of prospering and thriving in modern society.

A common stereotype is that black Americans are the primary beneficiaries of various anti-poverty programs. This stereotypical perception heightens oppositions by some members of USA society to social welfare programs. In reality, as the above table and graphic illustrate, members from all of the USA's racial/ethnics groups are impacted by poverty. Similarly, members from all of the USA's racial/ethnic groups utilize various anti-poverty programs to some degree or another. It is true, however, that a larger percentage of black Americans (relative to all Americans) tend to utilize anti-poverty programs.

For instance, the total USA population stood at an estimated 318,748,000 residents as of 2014 according to a Census Bureau population projection in its report titled "Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060." Black Americans comprised an estimated 13.2% (42,039,000) of the USA population as of 2014, and 24.1% of black Americans lived below the poverty line in 2015. In contrast, white Americans comprised 60.1% (191,530,000) of the USA population as of 2014, and 9.1% of white Americans lived below the poverty line in 2015. One of the reasons so much anti-poverty attention tends to focus on black Americans is precisely because black Americans tend to experience the highest incidence of poverty relative to their total count. Why is that so? A multitude of reasons exists to explain, say, why black Americans, generally speaking, tend to trail white Americans on most socioeconomic measures. These explanations run the gamut and include traits such as the following ones:

• racial discrimination going back to the slavery legacy
• racial stratification, ghettoization, and isolation
• employment stratification by race (gender and age)
• differences in employment opportunities and proximity to jobs
• subcultural differences in parenting practices
• lack of social discipline by black Americans contributing to them performing less reliably on the job
• lack of seriousness or too much playfulness by black Americans
• differences in drive, motivation, ambition, focus, resolve, or determination to be successful in life
• inadequate or insufficient preparation by black Americans lending to a lower placement on the meritocracy scale
• differences in educational levels
• differences in skill attainment particularly as acquisition of these skills relates to the burgeoning STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) professions
• genetical differences, and so on.

Perhaps all of these explanations—or some combination thereof—contain some element of the truth to one degree or another in explaining the present-day black-white socioeconomic dichotomy in the USA. At the same time, it is important for the reader to keep in mind the following often overlooked fact about black residents in the USA: Whereas, as of 2015, roughly 24% (or 10,131,399 million) of America's estimated 42,039,000 total black residents lived in poverty, the remaining 76% (or 31,907,601 million) of black Americans did not live in poverty. A common misperception is that practically all black Americans are poor and reliant on government assistance except an elite few athletes and entertainers.

Lifting the Veil of Ignorance

Photo Credit: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print

Please visit related page:

• http://bruessard.info/rule-of-law.html

The true goal of anti-poverty programs should be not only to raise the living standards of the poor to some minimum level as defined by the poverty line but also to help able-bodied, anti-poverty program recipients become self-sufficient to the point that they can earn enough money to remain above the poverty line without further or future governmental assistance. Admittedly, this self-sufficiency approach to ending poverty is easier said than done. It potentially would require a Herculean or formidable effort for an unskilled or semi-skilled, female-headed household with young children to support to independently enter the job market and earn enough money to stay above the poverty line on her own without any type of governmental assistance. It takes a lot of money in a sophisticated and technologically advanced society such as the USA to cover monthly childcare expenses, transportation expenses, school expenses, work expenses, etc. not to mention the expenses for the basics of food, clothing, and shelter (for the children). This self-sufficiency challenge places a lot of weight and a heavy burden on the shoulders of a single female head of household for her to have to bear. Many single women, however, do successfully manage to carry on with the burden of raising children alone or without the father present in the household and yet remain above the poverty line without utilizing public assistance.

For those female-headed households who do receive public assistance, some have calculated that they would be better off economically by receiving public assistance and not working than by working at a minimum wage (sometimes on a part-time and temporary basis far away from home) while receiving little to no public assistance. For female-headed households who receive public assistance, sometimes the government reporting requirements can become so stringent, cumbersome, and burdensome until the resultant upheaval, hassle, disruption, turmoil, and instability of income continuity caused by working in a low-paying job is not worth the trouble of holding the job. It becomes a delicate balancing act whereby public assistance should not be too generous to the point that it dissuades recipients from seeking work, but it also must be generous enough to provide a dignified minimum standard of living. Using a web analogy, you might think of those living on public assistance in the USA as experiencing the xx-small version of the American Dream. Those who rely on public assistance are right, smack in the midst of it all in the USA in terms of its societal milieu. There is little denying, however, that dependence on public assistance can become habit forming and generational.

11. World Poverty, Upheaval, Turmoil, and Strife

Poverty, of course, is relative. Poverty obviously is not a phenomenon unique to the USA. For instance, the economically less fortunate members of society in the USA would be considered as living the good life when compared to the living standards of some of the economically less fortunate members of society in other parts of the world. The current world poverty line is set at $1.90 per human each day, which comes to almost $695 USA dollars (USD) per human each year or $2,780 USA dollars each year for a family of four. According to the United Nations, as of 2010, over 700 million humans across the globe were living on an income of less than $1.90 USD a day. The next three videos are included here to provide an overview of some causes and consequences of world poverty—and consequences of wars.

The Global Pyramid of Wealth

Photo Credit: The Global Pyramid of Wealth

The next music video below is included here to symbolize hope for a better tomorrow for all peoples of the Earth despite all of the upheaval, turmoil, and strife occurring on a daily basis across Earth. The music video's purpose also is to inspire and comfort the economically less fortunate members of the human race. Obviously, a song alone is not going to put food on their table, clothing on their backs, and a roof over their heads. The following music video, however, encapsulates and personifies the human spirit at its best.

12. A Billion Galaxies and A Trillion Stars but One Earth, One Atmosphere, and One Race—The Human Race

Humans must never forget one important fact of life, and it is this: planet Earth remains the only known habitable home for humans. Also, the whole of life on Earth is tenuous, fragile, and also resilient. Humans are the Earth's principal caretaker. Caution: Handle Earth with care. The issuers of life on Earth are its water, air, and land. It really is a crying shame that some humans seem to have nothing better to do with their time other than to sit around and plot ways to blow up the world and kill other humans. Given the realities of (a) population growth and spread, (b) the struggle for survival and longevity, and (c) human scientific and technological advancements, astute land-use planning will become critically important and vital as humans move into the future. Granted, there is a lot of havoc and suffering in the world, but the human condition is a far cry from being hopeless because the human spirit ultimately prevails.

Climate Resilience - NASA