You see the percentate unmarried rate start to rise prior to the start on the war on poverty.  It is more an argument that can be made that the collective set of values of modern liberalism, or the decline of Christianity causing all sorts of ills.  One can say the war on poverty is also a byproduct of similar.

And what you have post 1968 is a flatlining of the decline on percentage in poverty.  Poverty didn't suddenly make a U-turn and go up to prior levels.

Government works = threatening people with fine/imprisonment ie coercion works.

Nothing new about this.

And then reallocating that which was obtained through such threats to others who benefit.  For those on the receiving end of the reallocation, it works fine.   Also, it works for people who want to limit others from doing things.  And I didn't post anywhere in my initial post (I don't believe I did) that how this works is desirable, just that it works for those who successfully use it.  And it is because it works that it draws people to use it more.

People who receive the "reallocation" are not fine with it though ...

Individuals who are on food stamps would prefer to earn more money rather than take a handout but they can't find better paying jobs because programs like food-stamps act as a massive subsidy to companies who pay their employees poorly.

Henry Ford was well known in part because he paid his empoyees far more than the competition to attract the best employees, and he reduced costs through increased productivity rather than reducing labour costs. Suppose (for argument sake) that people still believe in these concepts and would gladly pay their employees twice as much if it resulted in more than twice as much product being produced. When the government subsidizes their lower wage paying competitors by providing food stamps and rental subsidies and has "progressive taxes" that disproportionately impact his employees when he pays them more how much more does he have to pay his employees in order to double their real wage?

What makes you think that, if you got rid of food stamps, suddenly employers would pay more?  Supply and demand gets wages.  Why do you think, minus food stamps that suddenly employers would get generous?   Unless there was a sudden organizing of workers into unions who collectively go on strike, to drive up wages, because they would put pressure on employers to pay appropriately.

How employees live has little to no correlation with how they are paid.  Other factors do, like supply. Less welfare won't end up turning this around, unless the pay is so low people won't take it.  Why do you think otherwise?

By the way, I won't argue with you that it is a subsidy.  It is a subsidy, just like student loans are.  It is just that removal of such subsidies won't end up meaning employees get paid more.  And also, I know food stamps and stuff sucks.  I am currently on them.  I would rather be getting cash, and using money for more constructive things, but it is what I qualify for, so I use things on food.  It helps.

By eliminating food stamps you wouldn't see employeers suddenly pay more, especially in the current economy, but over time you would see an increase in what people earned ...

You would (essentially) see what happens in the market where there are not governmental subsidies. Software developers in my city earn anywhere from $40,000 per year to (over) $120,000 per year. The companies that pay wages at the low end of the scale are always looking for employees because their employees only stay with them until they can find something better and few people apply for the job because they've built a (bad) reputation. In contrast, the companies that pay well usually fill jobs quickly and have the pick of the litter of what's available in the city because everyone wants to work for them.

I have no doubt that there would still be people paying crap in the absence of food stamps, but companies who wanted to attract reliable hard working employees would pay more; and the average "Family man/woman" would probably earn (roughly) as much without food stamps as they did with food stamps.

Pardon my being perplexed here about this.  What about the cases of low paying jobs, which are structured a certain way, very rudamentary, and done in such a way that they are set up to be run by teenagers as their first jobs?  In other words, the jobs are fixed in nature, and you follow orders and do them.  The work is such that you can easily plug in others.

HOW the heck do you manage to raise the nature of the work to a level where it will justify higher wages, so that your theory of food stamps not being needed happens?  Do you seriously believe markets magically pay people living wages, and paying them living wages is what they are intrinsically set up to do?

Again, attract "reliable and hard working" employees, exactly is impacted how when that merely means doing what the boss says and showing up for work on time?  Say that the entire population ended up doing what the boss says, in an environment where doing it is doable and clearly understood and everyone showed up on time for work.  Does this suddenly mean every single job now would suddenly start to pay more?

I suppose this is more of a side issue, but I would argue that the problems in the U.S. all go back to our first past the post voting system. It leads to a two party system in which a vast majority of the voting populace feel unrepresented and forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. This leads to an apathetic and often frustrated voting base, which leads to a mistrust of government that translates into anger when the government begins doing things certain people feel it shouldn't be doing.

On the other hand, people in a place like France are much more likely to find a candidate that represents their interests, are more likely to vote for the candidate they like the most as opposed to the one they hate the least, and thus are more likely to have a government that truly represents the wants of the people. Democracy in its essence.

This is, for example, why the Socialist Party was recently able to take the presidency and congress despite having not won a major election prior to that since the 80s. Such a system allows several parties to subsist at once, whereas in the U.S. third parties are categorically unable to compete due to the spoiler effect of FPTP.

Some here might argue that a strong government that offers many socialized services is somehow inhibiting on our freedom, but I think that a properly elected government empowered by the will of the people is the epitome of freedom.

I have been looking at the impact the New Deal had on poverty. Only thing I found regarding possible impact of welfare on poverty is this on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty

Apparently, overall, when welfare gets implemented, poverty rates decline, according to this page. This is looking at multiple countries besides the United States. Would want to see a bigger picture of a chart at least of poverty rates in the United States, not just the 1950s, but also to the Gilded Age to.