Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Unlikely, Lyndon Johnson, poverty line, intervention, private sector, Jason Furman, Roaring Twenties, cash assistance, real income  
•       •       •

1192 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jan 2014 at 12:57 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size


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.comView Full Size
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 111 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report