If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegram)   Poverty rate has only dropped from 19% to 15% since Lyndon Johnson declared war 50 years ago, but it would be 271% without his heroic intervention   (telegram.com) divider line 111
    More: Unlikely, Lyndon Johnson, poverty line, intervention, private sector, Jason Furman, Roaring Twenties, cash assistance, real income  
•       •       •

1105 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jan 2014 at 12:57 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-05 12:10:47 PM
I shudder to think what it would be without the social safety net.
 
2014-01-05 12:36:52 PM
fta "Going forward, the biggest potential gains that could be made on poverty would be in raising market incomes," said Jason Furman, the chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

Sooo... People are less likely to live in poverty if they make more money? That's some fine economics work, there, Chief.
 
2014-01-05 12:45:05 PM

Notabunny: fta "Going forward, the biggest potential gains that could be made on poverty would be in raising market incomes," said Jason Furman, the chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

Sooo... People are less likely to live in poverty if they make more money? That's some fine economics work, there, Chief.


I think he's talking about minimum wage.
 
2014-01-05 12:50:27 PM
A quick read of the article and the author seems be harboring the delusion it's been a steady rate of decrease. Poverty rates are up from the historic lows under Ford and Carter, dropped a bit under Clinton, have been climbing since Bush got in the White House.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3/Figure1.png

/sorry no html, mobile
 
2014-01-05 12:59:40 PM
that's disappointing news to the Wealthy.
 
2014-01-05 01:01:42 PM
Divide and Conquer. happens to work.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqW-Fv1eLCU     (some adult language)
 
2014-01-05 01:02:13 PM

enry: Notabunny: fta "Going forward, the biggest potential gains that could be made on poverty would be in raising market incomes," said Jason Furman, the chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

Sooo... People are less likely to live in poverty if they make more money? That's some fine economics work, there, Chief.

I think he's talking about minimum wage.


This is another good argument for Obama raising the minimum wage for federal employees. He could do it unilaterally w/o congress. "As of today, minimum wage for all federal employees is $20/hr. An annual COLA of not less than 2% will be added to the minimum wage to ensure it keeps pace with inflation." Bam. Done.
 
2014-01-05 01:02:46 PM

NewportBarGuy: I shudder to think what it would be without the social safety net.


We would have more FREEDUMBS!111
 
2014-01-05 01:07:58 PM
It's always the same. "We don't need a social safety net, we need to create jobs and create economic mobility!" and never a word about how to do that, except maybe "Cut taxes!"

Errr, that's in reference to Ryan's whining in TFA, not TFA itself.
 
2014-01-05 01:17:37 PM
The biggest factor creating poverty is the erosion of the Dollar's buying power.  Wages have in no way kept up with real inflation over the past 40 years.
 
2014-01-05 01:18:21 PM

Notabunny: enry: Notabunny: fta "Going forward, the biggest potential gains that could be made on poverty would be in raising market incomes," said Jason Furman, the chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

Sooo... People are less likely to live in poverty if they make more money? That's some fine economics work, there, Chief.

I think he's talking about minimum wage.

This is another good argument for Obama raising the minimum wage for federal employees. He could do it unilaterally w/o congress. [cite please] "As of today, minimum wage for all federal employees is $20/hr. An annual COLA of not less than 2% will be added to the minimum wage to ensure it keeps pace with inflation." Bam. Done.


Actually IIRC the lowest federal worker now makes about 18K per year as a GS-1 step 1 and these are very few people. As a practical matter I think a full time federal worker on the very low end already makes at least about $10+ an hour. For many especially in cities like DC with high cost of living is this too low, yes! But then the judges in our federal court system are grossly underpaid compared to others at their experience level and responsibilities.
 
2014-01-05 01:21:02 PM

sdd2000: Notabunny: enry: Notabunny: fta "Going forward, the biggest potential gains that could be made on poverty would be in raising market incomes," said Jason Furman, the chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

Sooo... People are less likely to live in poverty if they make more money? That's some fine economics work, there, Chief.

I think he's talking about minimum wage.

This is another good argument for Obama raising the minimum wage for federal employees. He could do it unilaterally w/o congress. [cite please] "As of today, minimum wage for all federal employees is $20/hr. An annual COLA of not less than 2% will be added to the minimum wage to ensure it keeps pace with inflation." Bam. Done.

Actually IIRC the lowest federal worker now makes about 18K per year as a GS-1 step 1 and these are very few people. As a practical matter I think a full time federal worker on the very low end already makes at least about $10+ an hour. For many especially in cities like DC with high cost of living is this too low, yes! But then the judges in our federal court system are grossly underpaid compared to others at their experience level and responsibilities.


So some would see a small increase, and others would see their income double. Sounds like everybody would be happy.
 
2014-01-05 01:22:45 PM
So?
 
2014-01-05 01:25:54 PM

whither_apophis: A quick read of the article and the author seems be harboring the delusion it's been a steady rate of decrease. Poverty rates are up from the historic lows under Ford and Carter, dropped a bit under Clinton, have been climbing since Bush got in the White House.


You phrase it as though he never left.
 
2014-01-05 01:26:35 PM
And yet there are those on the right who would still vilify him today to the point of pissing on his grave, even though all of them have family members who were helped by his domestic policies, if not themselves. The only reason they don't is because they think what he did in Vietnam was right, and that he should have bombed that country even harder.
 
2014-01-05 01:28:28 PM

jjorsett: You phrase it as though he never left.


Sh*t on a carpet stinks even after you clean it up.
 
2014-01-05 01:29:30 PM
Any time you call something, "The War On ..." you can count on it being eternal, from poverty to drugs to terror.
 
2014-01-05 01:31:00 PM

rewind2846: jjorsett: You phrase it as though he never left.

Sh*t on a carpet stinks even after you clean it up.


So you're saying five years of Obama hasn't solved anything. We're in agreement there, at least.
 
2014-01-05 01:31:13 PM
Just tax the rich and give all the nonworkers free shiat.

Bam.
Done.
 
2014-01-05 01:33:12 PM

NewportBarGuy: I shudder to think what it would be without the social safety net.


I imagine something like a 3rd world cesspool, where the elderly peddle dying flowers to tourists and people who live in cobbled-together shanties bathe in filthy rivers.

After spending the last month in Sri Lanka, it's horrifying what happens to the poor when there is nothing to catch them when they're down.
 
2014-01-05 01:34:08 PM

StrikitRich: The biggest factor creating poverty is the erosion of the Dollar's buying power.  Wages have in no way kept up with real inflation over the past 40 years.


Well, that's a true statement but only partially so. If wages had kept the same rate of inflation, then the Dollar's buying power would be irrelevant. Wages can be manipulated artificially through legislation and inflation is just a fact of modern life.

And yes, inflation is a just a fact of life - it existed before the creation of the Fed, so please be careful with the blame.
 
2014-01-05 01:35:52 PM

jjorsett: rewind2846: jjorsett: You phrase it as though he never left.

Sh*t on a carpet stinks even after you clean it up.

So you're saying five years of Obama hasn't solved anything. We're in agreement there, at least.


You need to look up what the word "metaphor" means, dude.
Either that, or you're trollin on a sunday afternoon. (music by the Rascals)
 
2014-01-05 01:41:38 PM
Index minimum wage to be just a percent or two above the poverty level eligibility for welfare for a family of 3. Make it state by state, so that way it's cost of living dependant, and not a blanket rate for the entire country. California would be higher than say, Alabama.

States would be able to set their own rules, as long as it meets these minimum requirements. So states rights still are there.

Meaning a person working full-time no longer qualifies for welfare, up to a certain extent of course.

So you have a spending cut by cutting welfare. Not by taking it away, but by allowing people to make enough not to rely on it.

You also have a revenue increase because more tax money is being collected from higher salaries.
 
2014-01-05 01:42:13 PM
The disproportional distribution of the wealth generated from labor is the cause of this. The wealthiest among us are taking more and more of the pie, even while it gets bigger.
 
2014-01-05 01:47:16 PM

Phil McKraken: StrikitRich: The biggest factor creating poverty is the erosion of the Dollar's buying power.  Wages have in no way kept up with real inflation over the past 40 years.

Well, that's a true statement but only partially so. If wages had kept the same rate of inflation, then the Dollar's buying power would be irrelevant. Wages can be manipulated artificially through legislation and inflation is just a fact of modern life.

And yes, inflation is a just a fact of life - it existed before the creation of the Fed, so please be careful with the blame.


His comment also seems to iimplicitly ignore the fact that all other major currencies have inflation as well, and implies only the dollar has seen a reduction.
 
2014-01-05 01:49:10 PM

StrikitRich: The biggest factor creating poverty is the erosion of the Dollar's buying power.  Wages have in no way kept up with real inflation over the past 40 years.


Well.  CEO wages have.  As a matter of fact, the only redistribution of wealth since he enactment of the "Great Society" has been an increase in the divide between executive pay and worker pay, wth execs outpacing inflation and workers lagging.
 
2014-01-05 01:50:16 PM
Catholic Paul Ryan and others of his ilk would be best served by looking into their own Bibles: the parable of the Good Samaritan and the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 are excellent places to start. For all his 3 years of ministry, Jesus didn't say much at all concerning same-sex relationships, but He sure talked about those poors, and how all Christians are ordered to relate to them, quite a bit.
 
2014-01-05 01:52:06 PM

Phil McKraken: And yes, inflation is a just a fact of life - it existed before the creation of the Fed, so please be careful with the blame.


http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Yeah, but...go here and input 1800 and 1900.

What cost $100 in 1800 would cost $48.94 in 1900.

Then put in 1900 and 2000.

What cost $100 in 1900 would cost $2062.86 in 2000.
 
2014-01-05 01:52:14 PM

Phil McKraken: StrikitRich: The biggest factor creating poverty is the erosion of the Dollar's buying power.  Wages have in no way kept up with real inflation over the past 40 years.

Well, that's a true statement but only partially so. If wages had kept the same rate of inflation, then the Dollar's buying power would be irrelevant. Wages can be manipulated artificially through legislation and inflation is just a fact of modern life.

And yes, inflation is a just a fact of life - it existed before the creation of the Fed, so please be careful with the blame.


Didn't blame anyone specifically in my comment, but being born in the 60s and coming to age in the 70s I vividly remember families that got by with one bread winner suddenly forced to have 2 working parents to keep up.  Of course getting out of school 2 or 3 hours before the parents got home gave us lots (maybe too much?) of time for fun and mischief.
 
2014-01-05 01:53:04 PM

sarajlewis83: Catholic Paul Ryan and others of his ilk would be best served by looking into their own Bibles: the parable of the Good Samaritan and the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 are excellent places to start. For all his 3 years of ministry, Jesus didn't say much at all concerning same-sex relationships, but He sure talked about those poors, and how all Christians are ordered to relate to them, quite a bit.


What did he say the government should do about it? Force everyone to tithe?
 
2014-01-05 01:55:00 PM
Also, this graph is obligatory in this thread.

www.intellectualtakeout.org
 
2014-01-05 01:56:39 PM

jigger: sarajlewis83: Catholic Paul Ryan and others of his ilk would be best served by looking into their own Bibles: the parable of the Good Samaritan and the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 are excellent places to start. For all his 3 years of ministry, Jesus didn't say much at all concerning same-sex relationships, but He sure talked about those poors, and how all Christians are ordered to relate to them, quite a bit.

What did he say the government should do about it? Force everyone to tithe?


Who's picture is on the dollar?

Render unto caesar...
 
2014-01-05 01:58:52 PM

jigger: Also, this graph is obligatory in this thread.

[www.intellectualtakeout.org image 586x398]


I remember those days.  Before Johnson, black people never had the blues.  Blind Willie McTell had a hit single called "Don't Worry, Be Happy."  I love that song.
 
2014-01-05 01:59:56 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Well. CEO wages have. As a matter of fact, the only redistribution of wealth since he enactment of the "Great Society" has been an increase in the divide between executive pay and worker pay, wth execs outpacing inflation and workers lagging.


Which is as God intended.
 
2014-01-05 01:59:56 PM
US Population in 1963: 189,241,798
  19% in 1963=35,995,941 people living in poverty

US Population in 2010: 308,745,538
  19% in 2010=58,661,652 people living in poverty.
  15% in 2010=46,311,830 people living in poverty.

So, we have kept 12,349,821 people out of poverty by reducing the poverty rate by 4%. Sounds great to me!
 
2014-01-05 02:00:33 PM

El Pachuco: His comment also seems to iimplicitly ignore the fact that all other major currencies have inflation as well, and implies only the dollar has seen a reduction.


And what does the fact that other currencies have also inflated have to do with US wages?  Are German wages directly tied to US inflation?  Australian?  Brazilian? I'm paid in US Dollars, not Rand, Pounds, Pesos or Marks.
 
2014-01-05 02:01:06 PM

jigger: Yeah, but...go here and input 1800 and 1900.


Deflation is a very bad thing.
 
2014-01-05 02:01:32 PM

StrikitRich: I vividly remember families that got by with one bread winner suddenly forced to have 2 working parents to keep up


And when the income of two working parents wasn't enough, the next necessary action to stay afloat was taking on debt, distributing even more money upwards.
 
2014-01-05 02:01:42 PM

jigger: sarajlewis83: Catholic Paul Ryan and others of his ilk would be best served by looking into their own Bibles: the parable of the Good Samaritan and the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 are excellent places to start. For all his 3 years of ministry, Jesus didn't say much at all concerning same-sex relationships, but He sure talked about those poors, and how all Christians are ordered to relate to them, quite a bit.

What did he say the government should do about it? Force everyone to tithe?


Ahhh, jigger.If people like you are Christians, who'd want to be one?
 
2014-01-05 02:02:38 PM

Notabunny: enry: Notabunny: fta "Going forward, the biggest potential gains that could be made on poverty would be in raising market incomes," said Jason Furman, the chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

Sooo... People are less likely to live in poverty if they make more money? That's some fine economics work, there, Chief.

I think he's talking about minimum wage.

This is another good argument for Obama raising the minimum wage for federal employees. He could do it unilaterally w/o congress. "As of today, minimum wage for all federal employees is $20/hr. An annual COLA of not less than 2% will be added to the minimum wage to ensure it keeps pace with inflation." Bam. Done.


I wonder if he can do that for government contractors as well.  Something wrong about an employer taking my tax dollars to pay their employee's subpar wages.
 
2014-01-05 02:04:21 PM
The War on Poverty was actually making some real progress before it was summarily and suddenly cancelled in 1980.

There's been no real effort to re-address the problem ever since.
 
2014-01-05 02:04:24 PM

rewind2846: And yet there are those on the right who would still vilify him today to the point of pissing on his grave, even though all of them have family members who were helped by his domestic policies, if not themselves. The only reason they don't is because they think what he did in Vietnam was right, and that he should have bombed that country even harder.


I think if you repealed one of the most important domestic policies (Medicare) most of them wouldn't vilify him, because they would be dead.
 
2014-01-05 02:07:28 PM

jigger: Also, this graph is obligatory in this thread.


Gee, what happened in 1980?
 
2014-01-05 02:08:01 PM

jigger: What did he say the government should do about it? Force everyone to tithe?


Forced participation at the point of fire and brimstone for all eternity to your head.
 
2014-01-05 02:10:33 PM

jigger: sarajlewis83: Catholic Paul Ryan and others of his ilk would be best served by looking into their own Bibles: the parable of the Good Samaritan and the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 are excellent places to start. For all his 3 years of ministry, Jesus didn't say much at all concerning same-sex relationships, but He sure talked about those poors, and how all Christians are ordered to relate to them, quite a bit.

What did he say the government should do about it? Force everyone to tithe?


well I'm not a christian anymore, but this isn't even hard. Render unto ceasar what is ceasars. He would be thrilled to know that so many people who are in elected positions got there by claiming to follow his name and actions.  Then he would ask what they were doing with the collected taxes, and if those actions were what he would do. See, he was a lot more focused on the actual helping part, and less about who was doing it and how it was done. It's about who has the resources to help, and why they were doing it. He figured you'd be smart enough to figure that out.
 
2014-01-05 02:14:26 PM

EmmaLou: NewportBarGuy: I shudder to think what it would be without the social safety net.

I imagine something like a 3rd world cesspool, where the elderly peddle dying flowers to tourists and people who live in cobbled-together shanties bathe in filthy rivers.

After spending the last month in Sri Lanka, it's horrifying what happens to the poor when there is nothing to catch them when they're down.


The poors should simply be more bootstrappy and buy lobbyists, judges, and politicians in order to make federal economic policies which favor them for decades. It works for the rich.
 
2014-01-05 02:14:59 PM

jigger: sarajlewis83: Catholic Paul Ryan and others of his ilk would be best served by looking into their own Bibles: the parable of the Good Samaritan and the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 are excellent places to start. For all his 3 years of ministry, Jesus didn't say much at all concerning same-sex relationships, but He sure talked about those poors, and how all Christians are ordered to relate to them, quite a bit.

What did he say the government should do about it? Force everyone to tithe?


"Whose image is this? And whose inscription?"

...I'll let you read your Bible from there.
 
2014-01-05 02:17:39 PM
that's fantastic! Poverty is down by 5% since 1964!

OTOH, the number of Billionaires has increased about 26,000% since 1964.
 
2014-01-05 02:22:30 PM

jigger: sarajlewis83: Catholic Paul Ryan and others of his ilk would be best served by looking into their own Bibles: the parable of the Good Samaritan and the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 are excellent places to start. For all his 3 years of ministry, Jesus didn't say much at all concerning same-sex relationships, but He sure talked about those poors, and how all Christians are ordered to relate to them, quite a bit.

What did he say the government should do about it? Force everyone to tithe?


You know, funny thing about that? Jesus didn't say to help the poor by the work of expanded government services. He didn't say to hep the poor by an expansion of private charities. He simply said: help the poor. The least of these. The stranger on the side of the road. It's almost as if he was more concerned about the end result of his directive, and not so much about how it happened.

The good thing is, plenty of non-Christians also see a need to look out for those whom are more unfortunate. You don't need to follow Christ to see that a problem exists that needs solving. I'm merely saying that those who profess to follow Christ really shouldn't repeatedly find themselves opposed to one of His biggest directives by any means.
 
2014-01-05 02:25:38 PM

Job Creator: Notabunny: enry: Notabunny: fta "Going forward, the biggest potential gains that could be made on poverty would be in raising market incomes," said Jason Furman, the chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

Sooo... People are less likely to live in poverty if they make more money? That's some fine economics work, there, Chief.

I think he's talking about minimum wage.

This is another good argument for Obama raising the minimum wage for federal employees. He could do it unilaterally w/o congress. "As of today, minimum wage for all federal employees is $20/hr. An annual COLA of not less than 2% will be added to the minimum wage to ensure it keeps pace with inflation." Bam. Done.

I wonder if he can do that for government contractors as well.  Something wrong about an employer taking my tax dollars to pay their employee's subpar wages.


I don't think so. But the idea is that a higher federal minimum wage would be a catalyst for higher wages elsewhere. Here comes the science: Employers offer better wages/benefits/conditions in order to retain their employees who are leaving to the higher-wage federal government.
 
2014-01-05 02:29:09 PM
El Pachuco:

Great handle.
 
2014-01-05 02:30:01 PM

jigger: Also, this graph is obligatory in this thread.

[www.intellectualtakeout.org image 586x398]


Unsurprisingly, that graph is misleading. Most of Lyndon's "War on Poverty" acts were passed in 1964 and 1965. As the graph plainly shows -- and this better one posted earlier by whither_apophis shows as well -- the poverty level fell, as he puts it, to "historic lows under Ford and Carter."

Then the poverty rate rose under Reagan. I wonder why that might be... Hmm.
 
2014-01-05 02:31:56 PM

jigger: Phil McKraken: And yes, inflation is a just a fact of life - it existed before the creation of the Fed, so please be careful with the blame.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Yeah, but...go here and input 1800 and 1900.

What cost $100 in 1800 would cost $48.94 in 1900.

Then put in 1900 and 2000.

What cost $100 in 1900 would cost $2062.86 in 2000.


How much did a plasma TV cost in 1900? The world is so different now and these inflation comparisons are very easy to misunderstand. Who cares if eggs are 34985732897593875389 times more expensive now? Quality of life is what we should focus on as a measure of success.
 
2014-01-05 02:32:33 PM

colon_pow: Just tax the rich and give all the nonworkers free shiat.

Bam.
Done.


The rich are the non-workers, at least when it comes to actual contributions to society.
 
2014-01-05 02:35:24 PM

ltr77: The rich are the non-workers, at least when it comes to actual contributions to society.


The Republicans are masters at redefining things or framing the debate. One of the greatest tricks they pulled in recent years was labeling people who do nothing but manipulate capital as "producers" or "makers" -- and everyone else as "takers."
 
2014-01-05 02:36:16 PM

sarajlewis83: It's almost as if he was more concerned about the end result of his directive, and not so much about how it happened.


This.

Christians who think Jesus would oppose anti poverty programs seem to view poor people as a character-building exercise created for the wealthy. What God is most concerned with is giving the powerful an opportunity to refuse help if they're not feeling generous.
 
2014-01-05 02:49:01 PM

Ishkur: The War on Poverty was actually making some real progress before it was summarily and suddenly cancelled in 1980.

There's been no real effort to re-address the problem ever since.


And that was about when Nancy Reagan said "just say no" and the War on Civil Liberties Drugs cranked into high gear.
 
2014-01-05 02:53:49 PM

colon_pow: Just tax the rich and give all the nonworkers free shiat.

Bam.
Done.


And everyone getting food stamps is a nonworker.  Those people working stock rooms and cash registers and dealing with surly customers for bullschitt "pay" are nonworkers.
 
2014-01-05 02:55:24 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: colon_pow: Just tax the rich and give all the nonworkers free shiat.

Bam.
Done.

And everyone getting food stamps is a nonworker.  Those people working stock rooms and cash registers and dealing with surly customers for bullschitt "pay" are nonworkers.


Don't forget elderly people (the Republican base).  And soldiers.  Total moochers.  They make John Galt cry, or rather they would if John Galt wasn't such a manly man.
 
2014-01-05 02:55:53 PM
cdn.socialworkhelper.com
 
2014-01-05 03:05:24 PM
I was told it was under 5% since owning a refrigerator means you're no longer poor.
 
2014-01-05 03:08:55 PM

StrikitRich: El Pachuco: His comment also seems to iimplicitly ignore the fact that all other major currencies have inflation as well, and implies only the dollar has seen a reduction.

And what does the fact that other currencies have also inflated have to do with US wages?  Are German wages directly tied to US inflation?  Australian?  Brazilian? I'm paid in US Dollars, not Rand, Pounds, Pesos or Marks.


It ignores the fact that governments all over cannot directly control their currencies.  Even the smallest economy has too many participants, asset categories and factors to be able to keep a currency completely flat for even one year.  This leaves a choice between inflation and deflation, large or small.


For reasons too complex for this forum, mild inflation is the best, or least-worst, option, and the fact that modern governments do have enough control to keep inflation under control even through the recent bank/mortgage catastrophe is a testament to the abilities of the Federal Reserve and its foreign counterparts.


But as always, folks with little to no education on the subject have no problem whinging about how awful it is that you can't buy things today at 1914 prices (with 2014 wages, natch, not 1914 wages), and it's all the Fed's fault, and especially every D administration, and thank god St. Reagan fought them tooth and nail or we'd be like Zimbabwe with wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread and furthermore.


3.bp.blogspot.com

Up until 1950, inflation and deflation wrought havoc on the economy as various factors pushed the dollar around willy-nilly. This makes planning, debt payments and all kinds of time-based finance activities kinda difficult, dontchathink?

And then it flattens out after WWII, aside from the Energy Crisis and other temporary factors, even through the bank catastrophe, but oddly remains on the side of mild inflation - it's as if there were some control mechanisms that actually worked to keep it that way.
 
2014-01-05 03:15:21 PM
Solutare:
Then the poverty rate rose under Reagan. I wonder why that might be... Hmm.

That curve started up during the late 70s, during Carter's term, and only leveled off and started the down trend after Reagan's economic policies took effect. Basically, that "rise" was three years of Carter, one year of Reagan. Poverty peaked in 1982, went down through the rest of the 1990s. You have to remember that 10%+ inflation from the Carter years, combined with high unemployment - it hurt a lot of people. Reagan got elected because of that.

You should also note that the trend in the decrease in poverty from the "War on Poverty" preceded the passage of the laws initiating it, and pretty much stopped right as the government really started working on the problem in the late 1960s. Yeah, the initial bills were passed in 1964 and 1965, but it took a couple of years to actually take effect. Claiming success for TWoP in 1965 for a law passed in that year is pretty stupid.
 
2014-01-05 03:23:49 PM
Conservative Template Strategy For Opposing Policies They Don't Like But Which Are Otherwise Popular (CTSFOPTDLBWAOA)

Step 1:  Claim [policy goal] is impossible to achieve or too expensive to be worth pursuing.
Step 2:  Actively work against any steps taken to achieve [policy goal].
Step 3:  Point at failures, delays, or cost overruns in achieving [policy goal] as proof of claims from step 1.
Step 4:  Collect bribe anonymous campaign contribution from special interest group opposed to [policy goal] and/or votes from Herp/Derp portion of electorate.
 
2014-01-05 03:52:10 PM
Because rewarding people for being losers is the key to success.
 
2014-01-05 03:53:01 PM
Anti-Business' Obama Is Best President For Corporate Profits Since 1900

Since he came into office, Republicans have consistently attacked President Obama for supposedly being anti-business. As ThinkProgress noted last week, the data shows that
In fact, as the financial website Motley Fool noted today, President Obama is far and away the best president


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/26/1097301/anti-business-ob am a-is-is-best-president-for-corporate-profits-since-1900/
 
2014-01-05 03:54:58 PM

jgbrowning: The disproportional distribution of the wealth generated from labor is the cause of this. The wealthiest among us are taking more and more of the pie, even while it gets bigger.


If the poors weren't so lazy and stupid, they would be able to take more.

Instead they sit on the couch watching Springer and get paid $670/month to do it.

Vote democrat!
 
2014-01-05 03:58:38 PM
Here's my idea; Double the current stingy unemployment benefits as long as the recipient is maintaing a 3.0 or better GPA in college or trade school, and extend the benefits for 1 year after graduation. I'll bet the ROI would be fantastic.
 
2014-01-05 03:59:38 PM

Notabunny: The poors should simply be more bootstrappy and buy lobbyists, judges, and politicians in order to make federal economic policies which favor them for decades. It works for the rich.


Please, it is exactly the other way around. The democrats buy the votes by giving losers money to be losers. The losers then votes democrat to ensure that they will continue to get paid to be losers.

Poors are a vote-breeding project for the dumbocraps. They don't give a shiat about them otherwise.
 
2014-01-05 04:04:05 PM

Notabunny: Double the current stingy unemployment benefits


And pay for it how? farking unicorn fart futures contracts?
 
2014-01-05 04:05:10 PM

SevenizGud: The democrats buy the votes by giving losers money to be losers.


What, didn't you get your Obama check? You should have voted for him, dummy. Then you coulda spent your Obama money on rims like real Americans.
 
2014-01-05 04:08:14 PM

SevenizGud: jgbrowning: The disproportional distribution of the wealth generated from labor is the cause of this. The wealthiest among us are taking more and more of the pie, even while it gets bigger.

If the poors weren't so lazy and stupid, they would be able to take more.

Instead they sit on the couch watching Springer and get paid $670/month to do it.

Vote democrat!


You couldn't be a more obvious troll if your name was TrollBot5000. Your posts are literally what liberals say to mock Republican arguments.
 
2014-01-05 04:09:04 PM

SevenizGud: Notabunny: Double the current stingy unemployment benefits

And pay for it how? farking unicorn fart futures contracts?


Easy. Tax the rich and eliminate corporate loopholes. I'd also use the money to extend free school breakfasts and lunches to all students.
 
2014-01-05 04:15:10 PM

NewportBarGuy: I shudder to think what it would be without the social safety net.


And I wonder what it would be if the social safety net hadn't kept being picked apart starting in the 1980s.
 
2014-01-05 04:17:37 PM

Dan the Schman: You couldn't be a more obvious troll if your name was TrollBot5000.


And yet people still persist in replying to it.
 
2014-01-05 04:27:48 PM

Notabunny: Here's my idea; Double the current stingy unemployment benefits as long as the recipient is maintaing a 3.0 or better GPA in college or trade school, and extend the benefits for 1 year after graduation. I'll bet the ROI would be fantastic.


In some states (like California) your unemployment benefits will be cut off if they find out that you are attending classes, even at a state school or community college.

Why? Because according to their logic "you won't be able to take a job - any job - at a moment's notice because of your classes".  Never mind that the same could be said of anyone with children, parents or other dependents who need taking care of, it's school that matters.

Instead of working to better yourself and having the state give you a break - for which they will receive much in tax dollars later - they would rather have you sit on your ass, collect the check, and wait for the employers you've contacted to contact you in return.

I don't know if these idiot policies are the same now, but that's the way it was back in 2006.
 
2014-01-05 04:34:54 PM

rewind2846: Notabunny: Here's my idea; Double the current stingy unemployment benefits as long as the recipient is maintaing a 3.0 or better GPA in college or trade school, and extend the benefits for 1 year after graduation. I'll bet the ROI would be fantastic.

In some states (like California) your unemployment benefits will be cut off if they find out that you are attending classes, even at a state school or community college.

Why? Because according to their logic "you won't be able to take a job - any job - at a moment's notice because of your classes".  Never mind that the same could be said of anyone with children, parents or other dependents who need taking care of, it's school that matters.

Instead of working to better yourself and having the state give you a break - for which they will receive much in tax dollars later - they would rather have you sit on your ass, collect the check, and wait for the employers you've contacted to contact you in return.

I don't know if these idiot policies are the same now, but that's the way it was back in 2006.


I would also make that education tuition-free. Imagine what it would be like if anyone who wanted a college degree or trade school certificate could get one for free as long as they maintained a good GPA. I think our society would be changed for the better in a big way.
 
2014-01-05 04:46:57 PM

Notabunny: I would also make that education tuition-free. Imagine what it would be like if anyone who wanted a college degree or trade school certificate could get one for free as long as they maintained a good GPA. I think our society would be changed for the better in a big way.


Sounds like you're a socialest Commie fascist libtard who wants to give handouts to the Takers.
 
2014-01-05 05:09:51 PM

Dan the Schman: [Redacted] couldn't be a more obvious troll if [Redacted's]

 name was TrollBot5000. [Redacted's] posts are literally what liberals say to mock Republican arguments.

He's just an asshole who clumsily tries to push buttons.  It's not our fault his mommy ignored him and this is the only way he can get attention.  The ignore button works well enough if people stop replying. *hint*
 
2014-01-05 05:14:31 PM
pbs.twimg.com
 
2014-01-05 05:15:42 PM
We need more well-paying manufacturing jobs, like we used to have.I would pay a premium on shoes, clothing,and electronic tschotskes that were made in the USA. The problem is the "race to the bottom," and the perceived notion that the whole point of business is to squeeze out the last possible penny of profit,no matter what the cost.

There's a store in Boston called "Ball and Buck." They only sell products made here, including some kickass Randolph Technologies sunglasses. I encourage all Boston Farkers to patronize them.
 
2014-01-05 05:19:16 PM

jigger: Also, this graph is obligatory in this thread.


Holy crap! 1/3 of the country was in poverty in 1950?

And these are the halcyon days the GOP wants to return to?
 
2014-01-05 05:40:07 PM

bizzwire: jigger: Also, this graph is obligatory in this thread.

Holy crap! 1/3 of the country was in poverty in 1950?

And these are the halcyon days the GOP wants to return to?


Yes. As long as anyone who is not them isn't affected.
And if anyone who is them is affected, they'll still vote republican to make sure that those who aren't them that are affected will continue to suffer, even if they continue to suffer as well.

/think I've used up my pronouns for today
 
2014-01-05 06:02:44 PM

bizzwire: jigger: Also, this graph is obligatory in this thread.

Holy crap! 1/3 of the country was in poverty in 1950?

And these are the halcyon days the GOP wants to return to?


I'm pretty sure that they figure that 1/3 number would include mostly blahs and Hispanics so...yes, that is exactly what they would like to return to

/even if white trash like them have to suffer too
 
2014-01-05 06:02:51 PM

bizzwire: We need more well-paying manufacturing jobs, like we used to have.I would pay a premium on shoes, clothing,and electronic tschotskes that were made in the USA. The problem is the "race to the bottom," and the perceived notion that the whole point of business is to squeeze out the last possible penny of profit,no matter what the cost.

There's a store in Boston called "Ball and Buck." They only sell products made here, including some kickass Randolph Technologies sunglasses. I encourage all Boston Farkers to patronize them.


I live north of the city, but will check this place out. Thanks!
 
2014-01-05 06:03:50 PM

jjorsett: rewind2846: jjorsett: You phrase it as though he never left.

Sh*t on a carpet stinks even after you clean it up.

So you're saying five years of Obama hasn't solved anything. We're in agreement there, at least.


So you're saying something needed fixing?

Funny how all that started bubbling to the surface only AFTER he left office.
 
2014-01-05 06:08:51 PM

sarajlewis83: Catholic Paul Ryan and others of his ilk would be best served by looking into their own Bibles: the parable of the Good Samaritan and the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 are excellent places to start. For all his 3 years of ministry, Jesus didn't say much at all concerning same-sex relationships, but He sure talked about those poors, and how all Christians are ordered to relate to them, quite a bit.



What the hell are you talking about? This is a pipe dream. Republicans cannot read documents over 10 paragraphs long.
 
2014-01-05 06:30:36 PM
bizzwire:
Holy crap! 1/3 of the country was in poverty in 1950?

And these are the halcyon days the GOP wants to return to?


That's odd - which Republicans have suggested a return, specifically, to the way things were in 1950?

Most of them want to return to the part where the economy was doing well and the poverty rate was seriously dropping, like it did through the 1950s and most of the 1960s. Or did you miss that part of the graph? In the time from 1950 to 1965, it dropped from above 30% to below 20%. That's a good thing.

...and then we had the War on Poverty, and it's pretty much stayed the same for a half-century.
 
2014-01-05 06:56:27 PM

rewind2846: Notabunny: Here's my idea; Double the current stingy unemployment benefits as long as the recipient is maintaing a 3.0 or better GPA in college or trade school, and extend the benefits for 1 year after graduation. I'll bet the ROI would be fantastic.

In some states (like California) your unemployment benefits will be cut off if they find out that you are attending classes, even at a state school or community college.

Why? Because according to their logic "you won't be able to take a job - any job - at a moment's notice because of your classes".  Never mind that the same could be said of anyone with children, parents or other dependents who need taking care of, it's school that matters.

Instead of working to better yourself and having the state give you a break - for which they will receive much in tax dollars later - they would rather have you sit on your ass, collect the check, and wait for the employers you've contacted to contact you in return.

I don't know if these idiot policies are the same now, but that's the way it was back in 2006.


It is. I had to tell a girl who came in for food stamps who was intending to go back to cosmetology school that, by going to school, she would no longer qualify for food stamps. Fortunately, she was living with her mom, who DID qualify for aid, so it didn't kill her desire to go back to school.

It was that same day, to go off on a slight tangent, that we discovered that the CalWORKS requirement that people receiving aid apply for a minimum number of jobs per week (I think it's six?) is not satisfied by online applications through Craigslist that give no address. Nevermind that increasing numbers of employers are doing their job listings that way these days--government programs expect the unemployed to find jobs via the old "pounding the sidewalk" route, or through companies large enough to have online HR.  The government agencies just can't keep up wtih the times.
 
2014-01-05 06:59:20 PM
I deliver Meals on Wheels to people who are old, in wheelchairs and live off of public assistance.

When we have these conversations about "makers and takers", I instinctively cringe. Cutting benefits for such people is beyond fiscal responsibility. It's downright disgusting.

We don't need to ban marijuana any more (never did). I'm sure there are some frauds out there. Why not repurpose law enforcement to go after them, especially the people who make big money from submitting false Medicare/Medicaid claims?
 
2014-01-05 07:02:54 PM

Phil McKraken: especially the people who make big money from submitting false Medicare/Medicaid claims?


The ACA gave regulators some sharper teeth to go after fraudsters. Because of this, Medicare fraud prosecutions and $$ recovered have been breaking records. So some progress there.
 
2014-01-05 07:13:09 PM

cirby: Most of them want to return to the part where the economy was doing well and the poverty rate was seriously dropping, like it did through the 1950s and most of the 1960s. Or did you miss that part of the graph? In the time from 1950 to 1965, it dropped from above 30% to below 20%. That's a good thing.


I've been told by right-wingers in the past that economic success in the 1950's and 60's doesn't count because Europe was still a crater left over from the war.
 
2014-01-05 07:18:35 PM

Notabunny: Easy. Tax the rich


So punish productive people to have more give-aways to people who sit on their ass all day. That's brilliant policy. I am sure this is the path to making America greater.
 
2014-01-05 07:21:14 PM

SevenizGud: So punish productive people to have more give-aways to people who sit on their ass all day.


Which side is the productive people and which side are the people who sit on their ass all day?
 
2014-01-05 07:28:48 PM

Mrtraveler01: Which side is the productive people and which side are the people who sit on their ass all day?


Uhm, the parasites who cash the gubmint checks are the ones sitting on their ass all day. Here's a good way to remember it:

Those people who sit on their ass all day - those are the ones who are sitting on their ass all day.

Those people who get off their ass and, you know, go to work - those are the ones who are not sitting on their ass.
 
2014-01-05 07:33:27 PM

SevenizGud: Those people who sit on their ass all day - those are the ones who are sitting on their ass all day.


Oh? So you mean like the companies who actually have the government pay them money on the promise of creating jobs (not actually creating jobs)?

http://www.bradenton.com/2013/12/08/4876800/jobs-in-florida-the-rick -s cott.html
 
2014-01-05 07:40:00 PM

jjorsett: Any time you call something, "The War On ..." you can count on it being eternal, from poverty to drugs to terror.


That's a pretty easy argument to make, considering that poverty, drugs, and terror were all going to be eternal no matter what anyone said about them.
 
2014-01-05 08:21:05 PM

SevenizGud: So punish productive people


Rich people aren't productive. They don't have to be. That's the whole point of being rich!
 
2014-01-05 08:35:53 PM

Ishkur: SevenizGud: So punish productive people

Rich people aren't productive. They don't have to be. That's the whole point of being rich!


The mechanic that fixes my car = productive
The farmer that grows the wheat for my bread = productive
The cop that arrests the criminal who robbed the 7-11 where I get my coffee = productive
The graphic artist who designed my new business cards = productive
The rich guy that buys a bunch of derivatives and hedge funds and other financial instruments... what does he produce? Caviar farts?
 
2014-01-05 09:05:40 PM

thurstonxhowell: jjorsett: Any time you call something, "The War On ..." you can count on it being eternal, from poverty to drugs to terror.

That's a pretty easy argument to make, considering that poverty, drugs, and terror were all going to be eternal no matter what anyone said about them.


Generally speaking, declaring war on ANYTHING that isn't a defined and definable enemy, or declaring a war that has no definite end point, is going to end in disaster; mainly because it cannot end. Declaring "war" on a social problem made some kind of sense in a rhetorical way after WWII when America was the Winner of Wars, I suppose, but it kind of overlooks the fact that wars have things that social issues don't: enemies, battlefronts, weapons with known capabilities, soldiers with known rules of engagement.

A "War on Poverty" makes it sound like Poverty is an actual entity, which can be fought with some kind of existing weapon on some kind of battlefield; as if the Joint Chiefs of Staff could call in a couple of battalions of social workers and give them money tanks or something. And the "War" would be won when Poverty was captured or killed, I guess. From the outset, of course, "poverty" can't even be defined with any reasonable certainty, much less how it can be successfully combated and by whom under what conditions--nevermind how we'd know when "Poverty" was defeated. The same is true of any other non-combat "War" in the last 50 years, and also a few combat situations, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Hope springing instantly to mind.
 
2014-01-05 09:43:43 PM

rewind2846: The rich guy that buys a bunch of derivatives and hedge funds and other financial instruments... what does he produce? Caviar farts?


There are many here in the Politics Tab who would kill you and your entire family just to be able to smell those caviar farts, rest assured.
 
2014-01-05 10:01:07 PM
Mrtraveler01:
I've been told by right-wingers in the past that economic success in the 1950's and 60's doesn't count because Europe was still a crater left over from the war.

Funny - the only times I've heard that argument was from lefties who were trying to pretend that the 1950s sucked, and only looked good for that reason.

Never heard it from anyone on the right side of the aisle.
 
2014-01-05 10:18:54 PM

cirby: Mrtraveler01:
I've been told by right-wingers in the past that economic success in the 1950's and 60's doesn't count because Europe was still a crater left over from the war.

Funny - the only times I've heard that argument was from lefties who were trying to pretend that the 1950s sucked, and only looked good for that reason.

Never heard it from anyone on the right side of the aisle.


So we can return to the same tax rates they had in the 1950's then?
 
2014-01-05 10:23:43 PM
So the poverty rate has gone down by nearly a fourth?  And this is a bad result?
 
2014-01-05 10:40:09 PM

bizzwire: We need more well-paying manufacturing jobs, like we used to have.I would pay a premium on shoes, clothing,and electronic tschotskes that were made in the USA.


Everybody says it, but nobody practices it. I hate to break the news to all the greedy-business-moved-jobs-to-China boneheads, but businesses moved to China because those who made things in the US couldn't sell them; the public wasn't buying them. I spent a few months selling TVs and other electronics back when Sharp still made their TVs in the US... they were just slightly higher priced and didn't sell well. Sharp now makes their TVs in China because they would be bankrupt and out of business if they didn't. So save your "race to the bottom" nonsense, the choice is: move production out of the US or go bankrupt; there is not a single realistic scenario that keeps high-paying manufacturing jobs here without also adding massive unemployment because nobody can afford to buy all the high-priced "mad in the US" stuff.
 
2014-01-05 10:42:55 PM

cirby: Claiming success for TWoP in 1965 for a law passed in that year is pretty stupid.


Obviously, we should only take into account the years in which poverty went up -- because they prove your point.
 
2014-01-06 12:04:06 AM

DrPainMD: So save your "race to the bottom" nonsense, the choice is: move production out of the US or go bankrupt; there is not a single realistic scenario that keeps high-paying manufacturing jobs here without also adding massive unemployment because nobody can afford to buy all the high-priced "mad in the US" stuff.


So what will you do when the standard of living (and salaries) of the foreign wage slaves you seem to love come close to our own? After all, the salaries of many American workers are either decreasing relative to purchasing power, decreasing in real dollars, or staying static... what will people like you do when you run out of other poorer, browner people to exploit?

That day is coming, and sooner than you think. The Chinese will be the first.
 
2014-01-06 01:09:12 AM

rewind2846: DrPainMD: So save your "race to the bottom" nonsense, the choice is: move production out of the US or go bankrupt; there is not a single realistic scenario that keeps high-paying manufacturing jobs here without also adding massive unemployment because nobody can afford to buy all the high-priced "mad in the US" stuff.

So what will you do when the standard of living (and salaries) of the foreign wage slaves you seem to love come close to our own? After all, the salaries of many American workers are either decreasing relative to purchasing power, decreasing in real dollars, or staying static... what will people like you do when you run out of other poorer, browner people to exploit?

That day is coming, and sooner than you think. The Chinese will be the first.


There will always be poorer people to exploit. This quasi-racist idea that they have to be "browner" than the exploiters is simply an artifact of post-colonialism--there are plenty of wealthy Chinese and Japanese who are benefiting just as much off their "foreign wage slaves" as the American exploiters you seem to loathe. And your charming notion that jobs will magically move back into the US to provide American workers with better wages has been conclusively disproven repeatedly in the last decade or so.

This is a global economy now. Corporations don't exist to sell products made in America to Americans, not if they want to remain in business. There just aren't enough American buyers of consumer goods--even IF American wages were higher to compensate for returning production to America. Goods HAVE to be sold outside the country; that means making them where production is cheapest; that means (indirectly) increasing the standard of living of those workers. Isolationism can't work in a world where the Internet has no borders, and where to compete, a company has to keep a minimum of one eye on the bottom line.
 
2014-01-06 05:12:36 AM

Mrtraveler01: cirby: Mrtraveler01:
I've been told by right-wingers in the past that economic success in the 1950's and 60's doesn't count because Europe was still a crater left over from the war.

Funny - the only times I've heard that argument was from lefties who were trying to pretend that the 1950s sucked, and only looked good for that reason.

Never heard it from anyone on the right side of the aisle.

So we can return to the same tax rates they had in the 1950's then?


Can we return to the same deductions we had in the 1950s then? And can we return to the social spending and safety net of the 1950s also?
 
2014-01-06 07:47:41 AM

sarajlewis83: jigger: sarajlewis83: Catholic Paul Ryan and others of his ilk would be best served by looking into their own Bibles: the parable of the Good Samaritan and the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 are excellent places to start. For all his 3 years of ministry, Jesus didn't say much at all concerning same-sex relationships, but He sure talked about those poors, and how all Christians are ordered to relate to them, quite a bit.

What did he say the government should do about it? Force everyone to tithe?

You know, funny thing about that? Jesus didn't say to help the poor by the work of expanded government services. He didn't say to hep the poor by an expansion of private charities. He simply said: help the poor. The least of these. The stranger on the side of the road. It's almost as if he was more concerned about the end result of his directive, and not so much about how it happened.

The good thing is, plenty of non-Christians also see a need to look out for those whom are more unfortunate. You don't need to follow Christ to see that a problem exists that needs solving. I'm merely saying that those who profess to follow Christ really shouldn't repeatedly find themselves opposed to one of His biggest directives by any means.


Jesus didn't advocate for government helping the poor at all. He told tax collectors to quit their jobs and follow him. I interpret this to mean that he wants us as individuals to choose to be good. We can't choose to be good if government tries to take over that role entirely. So a dollars to charity are better than dollars to government. Liberals don't like that because they can't control those dollars.
 
2014-01-06 10:47:07 AM

Gyrfalcon: Isolationism can't work in a world where the Internet has no borders, and where to compete, a company has to keep a minimum of one eye on the bottom line.


It's not about "isolationism", it's about exploitation. Eventually the nations we euphemistically call the "third world" will want a piece of the first world, and the playing field will become a lot more level as a result. This will be a good thing, as the "race to the bottom" will end when the bottom is right under your feet. US corporations "keeping a minimum of one eye on the bottom line" will have to figure out other ways of meeting that bottom line which don't involve child labor and sweatshops. This is what's called "competition".

As for jobs moving back here... already there are some american manufacturers and companies that are bringing jobs back here due to increased energy and transportation costs, quality factors, and for IP and national security concerns. They learned that the push to send their business overseas in the short term has produced more long term problems than they realized.

Here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bmoharrisbank/2012/12/17/why-outsourced- jo bs-are-returning-stateside/
http://www.businessinsider.com/manufacturing-jobs-returning-to-ameri ca -2013-2
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-stat es /120504/american-manufacturing-jobs-returning-outsourcing-reshoring
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47323840
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/28/why-call-center-job s- are-coming-back.html
http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/14/10156162-made-in-amer ic a-trend-against-outsourcing-brings-jobs-back-from-china?lite
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/22/small-us-manufacturers-st_n _1 619470.html
http://www.workforce.com/articles/bringing-the-jobs-back-home-how-re -s horing-is-coming-to-america

Google is your friend.
 
Displayed 111 of 111 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report