Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[Oddball]

That chart, if it proves anything at all, proves that Johnson's War on poverty might have been working until Reagan came into office and started his assault on the working class.

Bear in mind that is not what I say it proves, but it could be interpreted that way if one were foolish enough to try to make such an argument based on only one metric.

How do you account for the fact that the numbers were falling prior to 1965?

And speaking of empty rhetoric, what's that "....until Reagan came into office and started his assault on the working class" dreck?

How do I account for the falling numbers pre 1965?

That was the best economic times this nation had. Of course the rate of poverty was down.

Don't you know anything about this nations economic history, Oddball?

Apparently not.

And you know, if you don't know what thing were like, how can you really judge how policies worked?

Poverty started to increase in this nation when Reaganomics kicked in.

Some segments of the population did better as a result of his policies, but most of us started to have less purchasing power.

The zenith of purchasing power for the middle in America began to fall around 1970 and more or less has been falling ever since.

Welfare has nothing to do with that.

Mostly that has to do with the changing econo0mies in the rest of the world, and our stupid decision to offshore our own indutrial jobs.

Wake up and smell the economy.

You are extremely misinformed by EXPERTS in propaganda.

Wait a minute....We had the best economic times the nation had BEFORE Medicare, Medicaid, Great Society welfare handouts and corporate bailouts?

When did the gold standard end and how did Nixon's wage and price controls work out?

What do you think the economic effect upon America was, in dumping uncounted billions of dollars into the Vietnam debacle?

What in hell do you think it was that brought about 12+% inflation and 20+% interest rates, in the late '70s & early '80s?

And you accuse me of knowing nothing about American economic history?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How do you account for the fact that the numbers were falling prior to 1965?

And speaking of empty rhetoric, what's that "....until Reagan came into office and started his assault on the working class" dreck?

How do I account for the falling numbers pre 1965?

That was the best economic times this nation had. Of course the rate of poverty was down.

Don't you know anything about this nations economic history, Oddball?

Apparently not.

And you know, if you don't know what thing were like, how can you really judge how policies worked?

Poverty started to increase in this nation when Reaganomics kicked in.

Some segments of the population did better as a result of his policies, but most of us started to have less purchasing power.

The zenith of purchasing power for the middle in America began to fall around 1970 and more or less has been falling ever since.

Welfare has nothing to do with that.

Mostly that has to do with the changing econo0mies in the rest of the world, and our stupid decision to offshore our own indutrial jobs.

Wake up and smell the economy.

You are extremely misinformed by EXPERTS in propaganda.

Wait a minute....We had the best economic times the nation had BEFORE Medicare, Medicaid, Great Society welfare handouts and corporate bailouts?

When did the gold standard end and how did Nixon's wage and price controls work out?

What do you think the economic effect upon America was, in dumping uncounted billions of dollars into the Vietnam debacle?

What in hell do you think it was that brought about 12+% inflation and 20+% interest rates, in the late '70s & early '80s?

And you accuse me of knowing nothing about American economic history?

You weren't supposed to notice all that.

 

[MaggieMae]

Wrong again. Single mothers have seen their poverty rate cut in half by these programs. As previously noted, the majority of cash benefit recipients are out in 2-3 yrs, long enough to get an associates and potty train their children so they can be accepted in pre-schools. The generational recipients almost overwhelmingly have disability issues involved.

Uh-huh....Create programs that encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy -and make no mistake about it, the rate of illegitimacy, especially amongst blacks, has skyrocketed since 1965- then claim that your programs help those whom you've encourage to exhibit the behavior.

Classic socialist do-gooder scam...Break a man's leg, then hand him a crutch and condescendingly preach to him how lucky you he is to have your "help".

In the meantime, the bureaucrats clean up.

It's bewildering isn't it?

Again referring to the graph in the OP, the poverty rate was plummeting BEFORE the so-called 'War on Poverty' and from that point on has been up and down but fairly level on average after expenditures exceeding $10 trillion on poverty programs since LBJ pushed Congress to allocate $1 billion for his anti-poverty initiative 47 years ago.

Any economist or social analyst worth his salt will tell you that poverty is not addressed adequately by government but rather by economic health in any society. The more free, less encumbered, and more opportunity to be prosperous the people have, the less poverty there will be and the less severe the poverty that exists will be.

So maybe, just maybe government programs are not the answer to poverty in America? Maybe just maybe government regulation and tax structures that best encourage the private sector is the best plan to reduce poverty in America?

I just shake my head when I read some of our members suggesting that if we don't give the poor television sets and Xboxes and other luxuries that we will just encourage them to steal them. That might hold up if our history didn't show that in times of much less less prosperity and much more poverty in the past, there was much less crime. Maybe just maybe the answer is in teaching traditional values of honesty, integrity, basic common decency instead of assuming everybody will be evil if they aren't given what they want?

I just shake my head when I read some of our members suggesting that we hurt the children if we don't support their irresponsible parents. When one in five children lives in poverty and almost ALL of that one in five are children of single parents, maybe just maybe the answer is in promoting marriage, two parent traditional families, and people accepting their responsibilities of supporting and parenting their children if they are going to have children. Maybe just maybe we promote children in poverty by subsidizing irresponsible behavior?

I know some of you sneer at and turn up your nose at conservative values. But if we are serious about addressing the root and effect of poverty on our people, I think you would all do well to take another honest look at that.

I was talking about human nature, Fox. "Keeping up with the Joneses" didn't originate in this decade, nor the last. Plus, I never said it was right--just that it would happen.

If you are "serious" about addressing it, I'd like to see a concrete "PLAN" after all the addressing it. Because rhetoric is all we've had for decades and it's demonstrated once again by your thread. You propose no plan that would be workable when you consider the number of people that would need to be participants in any plan. You only talk about the values of conservatives and how values should somehow be enough to magically transform poorly educated and nonproductive people into intelligent, educated, and acceptable members of society. Regious groups can only do so much; philanthropic organizations can only do so much. Volunteers WILL only do so much. As I said, to end the cycle of poverty, it will take a joint commitment by communities and government working together, and it will cost money, no matter what alternative "plan" is implemented. Turn bad situations around by real working programs, and the values will follow. Are conservatives en masse willing to cough it up or will they just continue to be all talk and no action?

 

[Foxfyre]

Tell me how it is responsible for somebody with no basic education and no spouse to have three kids to support?

How about we make that a socially unattractive situation rather than go out of our way to reward it so that more people will avoid being in that position?

I for one have always thought that children should suffer severely for the marital status of their parents. Stigmatization is just the beginning!

You see there are two ways to look at this.

1) There are kids living in poverty and a moral society does not allow kids to suffer. I agree. A moral society does take care of the truly innocent and helpless. That does not need to be a duty of the federal government however. State governments or local communities or private charities have pretty well demonstrated they are far more efficient and effective in doing that.

2) When we reward irresponsible, neglectful, or incompetent parents by supporting them along with their offspring, we provide absolutely no incentive for people to not be irresponsible, neglectful, and/or incompetent. I prefer taking care of the kids already in a bad situation, but not encouraging more and more kids now and into an interminable future to suffer the same fate. Lets start taking kids from parents who cannot or will not provide for them until they can and will provide for them. When there will be no government benefits for themselves, I think most people will take better care to avoid having the kids.

 

[MaggieMae]

Only if one defines Resounding Success as getting the government to mug hardworking people on one's behalf.

How much of your taxes goes to people on welfare? How much goes to entitlement programs, like Social Security and Medicare of which you will ultimately be demanding your share? How much of your taxes goes toward military and national security? Quit whining. But for the grace of God goes someone like you who if you ever have a streak of bad luck may just wind up feeding yourself by food stamps and eating crow when they run out before the first of every month.

 

[Oddball]

If you are "serious" about addressing it, I'd like to see a concrete "PLAN" after all the addressing it.

Why is it that someone else has to come up with a plan?

Because rhetoric is all we've had for decades and it's demonstrated once again by your thread.

No, it's not...We've also had and army of bureaucrats, trillions of dollars and uncountable social welfare programs for those decades, yet the problem is as bad as ever, and all poverty pimps like you can do is say "Oh yeah, well why don't you come up with a better plan?"

You propose no plan that would be workable when you consider the number of people that would need to be participants in any plan. You only talk about the values of conservatives and how values should somehow be enough to magically transform poorly educated and nonproductive people into intelligent, educated, and acceptable members of society. Regious groups can only do so much; philanthropic organizations can only do so much. Volunteers WILL only do so much. ...

Right...They'll only work for people who don't wish to become comfortable in their poverty...Funny how that happens when you have to actually look into the eyes of those from whom you're mooching.

 

[MaggieMae]

And a decline in the ratio of people in the workforce.

Our economy is grinding down towards a Eurostyle low growth / permanent structurally high unemployment rate for a reason, bub.

Off topic, but Europes economic downfall had much to do with combining the economies of too many countries sharing one monetary value. Those countries felt the very same effect as a result of the banking crisis BEGUN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, with runs on banks, massive layoffs and loss of revenue as a result. Nice try, but no rose.

 

[Foxfyre]

Uh-huh....Create programs that encourage and increase the rates of illegitimacy -and make no mistake about it, the rate of illegitimacy, especially amongst blacks, has skyrocketed since 1965- then claim that your programs help those whom you've encourage to exhibit the behavior.

Classic socialist do-gooder scam...Break a man's leg, then hand him a crutch and condescendingly preach to him how lucky you he is to have your "help".

In the meantime, the bureaucrats clean up.

It's bewildering isn't it?

Again referring to the graph in the OP, the poverty rate was plummeting BEFORE the so-called 'War on Poverty' and from that point on has been up and down but fairly level on average after expenditures exceeding $10 trillion on poverty programs since LBJ pushed Congress to allocate $1 billion for his anti-poverty initiative 47 years ago.

Any economist or social analyst worth his salt will tell you that poverty is not addressed adequately by government but rather by economic health in any society. The more free, less encumbered, and more opportunity to be prosperous the people have, the less poverty there will be and the less severe the poverty that exists will be.

So maybe, just maybe government programs are not the answer to poverty in America? Maybe just maybe government regulation and tax structures that best encourage the private sector is the best plan to reduce poverty in America?

I just shake my head when I read some of our members suggesting that if we don't give the poor television sets and Xboxes and other luxuries that we will just encourage them to steal them. That might hold up if our history didn't show that in times of much less less prosperity and much more poverty in the past, there was much less crime. Maybe just maybe the answer is in teaching traditional values of honesty, integrity, basic common decency instead of assuming everybody will be evil if they aren't given what they want?

I just shake my head when I read some of our members suggesting that we hurt the children if we don't support their irresponsible parents. When one in five children lives in poverty and almost ALL of that one in five are children of single parents, maybe just maybe the answer is in promoting marriage, two parent traditional families, and people accepting their responsibilities of supporting and parenting their children if they are going to have children. Maybe just maybe we promote children in poverty by subsidizing irresponsible behavior?

I know some of you sneer at and turn up your nose at conservative values. But if we are serious about addressing the root and effect of poverty on our people, I think you would all do well to take another honest look at that.

I was talking about human nature, Fox. "Keeping up with the Joneses" didn't originate in this decade, nor the last. Plus, I never said it was right--just that it would happen.

If you are "serious" about addressing it, I'd like to see a concrete "PLAN" after all the addressing it. Because rhetoric is all we've had for decades and it's demonstrated once again by your thread. You propose no plan that would be workable when you consider the number of people that would need to be participants in any plan. You only talk about the values of conservatives and how values should somehow be enough to magically transform poorly educated and nonproductive people into intelligent, educated, and acceptable members of society. Regious groups can only do so much; philanthropic organizations can only do so much. Volunteers WILL only do so much. As I said, to end the cycle of poverty, it will take a joint commitment by communities and government working together, and it will cost money, no matter what alternative "plan" is implemented. Turn bad situations around by real working programs, and the values will follow. Are conservatives en masse willing to cough it up or will they just continue to be all talk and no action?

Here's the plan.

The Federal government will address and fulfill its constitutionally mandated duties and otherwise get out of the business of social engineering, social relief, etc. etc. etc. It is obvious to many of us that the federal government makes things worse or creates unintended bad consequences when it interjects itself into the social process.

I think the MaggieMae's of the world should put their time, energy, skills, and monetary resources where their mouth is and get busy in their local communities to deal with the problems there instead of expecting the federal government to take and use other people's money to do that.

And as we can't accomplish all that over night, I thnk we should implement the proposals in the following letter immediately so that nobody has to go hungry or without shelter but poverty will become a lot less attractive to a lot more people who just might find the incentive to avoid it:

A letter written to The Waco Tribune

Put me in charge…

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test all recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke, or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you to do. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good”.

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem”, consider that is wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

Alfred W Evans
1SG, USA(Ret)
Gatesville, Texas

 

[MaggieMae]

Sorry Leftwinger - Actions have consequences. If you spend your life smoking cigarettes, getting high, drinking alcohol, and buying lottery tickets - you're life may not be so great. If you can't afford to pay your bills - Move in with family or friends, share expenses with other people that make bad decisions like you, eat less food. The best education you can give your kids is by example. Stop being a loser.

Sorry Zander...but it is the same old blame the victim mentality of the conservative right. "If only they hadn't blown their money...they would be rich like you and I"

I hear the same old stories about how poor people scam the system and drive Escalades while collecting food stamps. The same stories of "I was on line at the grocery store and they were buying Filet Mignon with food stamps"

The poor people I have met in my life worked hard. They drove 15 year old pickup trucks, had hand me down furniture and their kids wore hand me down clothes. If the car broke down and they needed $600 to repair it...they did without. If they had to pay a $1000 doctor bill...they did without. Electricity got cut off and bills did not get paid.

Not everyone in this world gets dealt a fair hand. Some get everything handed to them and some get nothing but scraps.

These people are not the losers that you claim. They work hard and have little to show for it. You can gloat and say they deserve it. But sometimes there is not an open path for success. In every society, some flourish and some suffer. A great society takes care of all its citizens

What an emotional load of crap !! A great society is a leftist fantasy. Great individuals are what we need.

The people you describe are economic losers (they may be kind, wonderful, loving people) because they never updated their skills and they fail to live below their means. They never put anything away for a rainy day - but they have all the toys and trapping a consumer could ask for!! Now it's raining and they want a handout ?? Too bad. You'll take the pittance that the government gives you and be happy you got anything. Move in with your friends or relatives. Sell your TV, I-pad, I-pod, Lap top, cell phone, your WII and your play station. Cancel the cable and internet. Maybe someday you'll understand that the only person responsible, for your life is YOU. It isn't "blame" leftwingnut - it is REALITY. The Government and "society" is not your mommy and daddy. Grow up and deal with it, or take the crumbs that "society" gives you.

So what is it you and others here who are so righteous suggest as a solution, since there are so many slackers? Shoot them all? Yeah, that'll show 'em. Those damned younguns will surely learn a lesson when they learn Simon Legree and his posses come ta town. End of the cycle of poverty. You betcha.

 

[MaggieMae]

Again referring to the graph in the OP, the poverty rate was plummeting BEFORE the so-called 'War on Poverty' and from that point on has been up and down but fairly level on average after expenditures exceeding $10 trillion on poverty programs since LBJ pushed Congress to allocate $1 billion for his anti-poverty initiative 47 years ago.

Why are you assuming that a major push toward a federal anti-poverty policy began in 1964 with the War on Poverty? Your graph shows the decline beginning in or after 1961. Coincidentally, perhaps, that's the year a series of significant anti-poverty measures (though not billed as such, politically) began under the New Frontier. Some examples:



And so on. If our standard here is "when things happened on the graph" it sounds like this agenda was a resounding (astonishing, actually) success in combating poverty.

And yet the poor are still with us. Shouldn't that be some sort of wakeup call?

The fact remains that the periods of greatest reduction in poverty in America came through prosperity in the private sector, such prosperity created by the private sector, and not via government initiative. Sure government can claim short term results from this or that initiative. And then it tends to turn a blind eye to the long term unintended negative consequences of those same initiatives.

I think it is time to stop turning a blind eye.

Thomas Sowell has lived it and has devoted a great deal of his professional career researching, studying, and writing about the history of black Americans. He has long maintained that black Americans were the group advancing the most percentagewise in prosperity overall up until LBJ's 'War on Poverty.' Since that time the advancement came to a screeching halt. He blames liberal government policies for the destruction of the black family and the institutions that supported it and for creating much of the problems we have today.

A few years ago he wrote this for Capitalist Magazine:

. . . .In the liberal vision, slums bred crime. But brand-new government housing projects almost immediately became new centers of crime and quickly degenerated into new slums. Many of these projects later had to be demolished. Unfortunately, the assumptions behind those projects were not demolished, but live on in other disastrous programs, such as Section 8 housing.

Rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years before the new 1960s attitudes toward sex spread rapidly through the schools, helped by War on Poverty money. These downward trends suddenly reversed and skyrocketed.

The murder rate had also been going down, for decades, and in 1960 was just under half of what it had been in 1934. Then the new 1960s policies toward curing the "root causes" of crime and creating new "rights" for criminals began. Rates of violent crime, including murder, skyrocketed.

The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.

Government social programs such as the War on Poverty were considered a way to reduce urban riots. Such programs increased sharply during the 1960s. So did urban riots. Later, during the Reagan administration, which was denounced for not promoting social programs, there were far fewer urban riots.

Neither the media nor most of our educational institutions question the assumptions behind the War on Poverty. Even conservatives often attribute much of the progress that has been made by lower-income people to these programs.

For example, the usually insightful quarterly magazine City Journal says in its current issue: "Beginning in the mid-sixties, the condition of most black Americans improved markedly."

That is completely false and misleading.

The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before any of the legislation and policies that are credited with producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of blacks out of poverty did not -- repeat, did not -- accelerate during the 1960s.

The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty. . . . .
Capitalism Magazine - War on Poverty Revisited

As it has been said there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

I think we as a nation need to seriously rethink this before we consign more generations of Americans to crushing poverty and permanent unemployment.

More statistics, more blame, more rhetoric. Does Sowell offer an alternative?

I reiterate my only alternative, which is EDUCATION. Will Thomas Sowell embrace the efforts of Arne Duncan who's primary target is under-performing schools? Duncan correctly states that when children are turned around, communities get turned around.

 

[Samson]

If you are "serious" about addressing it, I'd like to see a concrete "PLAN" after all the addressing it. Because rhetoric is all we've had for decades and it's demonstrated once again by your thread. You propose no plan that would be workable when you consider the number of people that would need to be participants in any plan. You only talk about the values of conservatives and how values should somehow be enough to magically transform poorly educated and nonproductive people into intelligent, educated, and acceptable members of society. .....?

Blah, blah blah....Yeah, maybe we need another stinkin' Federal program..

Rhetoric being "all we've seen for decades....????" (conveniently ignoring the Department of Health and Human Services, Dept of Education, Dept.....): Jaysus, Maggie your ignorance has no limit.

Here are just the "A's"

A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies (A): USA.gov

Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
•Administration for Native Americans
•Administration on Aging (AoA)
•Administration on Developmental Disabilities
•Administrative Committee of the Federal Register
•Administrative Conference of the United States
•Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
•Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
•African Development Foundation
•Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
•Agency for International Development
•Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
•Agricultural Marketing Service
•Agricultural Research Service
•Agriculture Department (USDA)
•Air Force
•Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau (Justice)
•Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (Treasury)
•American Battle Monuments Commission
•AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation)
•Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
•Appalachian Regional Commission
•Architect of the Capitol
•Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board)
•Archives (National Archives and Records Administration)
•Arctic Research Commission
•Arizona State, County, and City Websites
•Arkansas State, County, and City Websites
•Armed Forces Retirement Home
•Arms Control and International Security
•Army
•Army Corps of Engineers
•Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee
•Atlantic Fleet Forces Command

 

[MaggieMae]

What an emotional load of crap !! A great society is a leftist fantasy. Great individuals are what we need.

The people you describe are economic losers (they may be kind, wonderful, loving people) because they never updated their skills and they fail to live below their means. They never put anything away for a rainy day - but they have all the toys and trapping a consumer could ask for!! Now it's raining and they want a handout ?? Too bad. You'll take the pittance that the government gives you and be happy you got anything. Move in with your friends or relatives. Sell your TV, I-pad, I-pod, Lap top, cell phone, your WII and your play station. Cancel the cable and internet. Maybe someday you'll understand that the only person responsible, for your life is YOU. It isn't "blame" leftwingnut - it is REALITY. The Government and "society" is not your mommy and daddy. Grow up and deal with it, or take the crumbs that "society" gives you.

Now that's an emotional load of crap. How much should one put away for the outsourcing of your industry to Asia? What skills update ensures employment in an economy that is paying off the casino bets of the hedge fund managers? How do you circumvent the occupancy laws of your state (mine is 2 persons per bedroom)? I think you have a very skewed view of how the poor live. I know of very few with computers or video games and cell phones are cheaper than land lines.

You live in Missouri? that's in the USA? And you claim there is a law saying that you can only sleep 2 people in a bedroom?

She's talking about demographic statistics, not law. Now you're sounding like your wild-eyed reactionary right-wing nutcases here. Please don't go there. Demographics in my state are around the same because there are so few affordable rental properties and way too many people who can't afford to buy so they need to double up to pay the higher rent or settle for a piece of shit, even if they're working AND paying their share of taxes for all those slackers across the country that need to be dumped somewhere other than in THIS country. (That last part was satire, for those too dumb to get it.)

 

[MaggieMae]

And BTW for all those crying about manufacturing jobs. We (the USA) are still number one..

What are the Top Manufacturing Countries?

Here's an update from the 2007 report:

FT.com / China - US manufacturing crown slips

However, that's still great news. Looks like all the screeching that THE US IS GOING TO GO THE WAY OF GREECE is bullshit. Right?

 

[MaggieMae]

Only if one defines Resounding Success as getting the government to mug hardworking people on one's behalf.

I was thinking more along the lines of a 10 percentage point drop in the poverty rate in the space of a single decade (i.e. virtually cutting it in half).

According to the graph, that happened mostly in the decade before 1965 and the LBJ welfare state....How'd that ever come about?

I've already told you, but you chose to ignore it, the 50's were a period of expansion and prosperity.

1950s and 1960s Main Streets Fuel Prosperity: Consumerism in Post War America Focused on Downtown Shopping

 

[MaggieMae]

According to the graph, that happened mostly in the decade before 1965 and the LBJ welfare state....How'd that ever come about?

The total destruction of Asian and European ecomomies in 1945 may have had something to do with it.

Nothing like nuking and firebombing your industrial rivals to boost the economy.

But the fallacy in this theory is that it cost us much in American blood and treasure to rebuild those economies which we did.

And the fallacy in your theory is that many millions of guys deployed overseas came home needing jobs. The unemployment rate should have skyrocketed but it didn't even though a lot of the gals who had been filling in during the war elected to continue to work at paying jobs.

The lesson to be learned is that government programs will temporarily help whatever special interest group is targeted but will invariably result in unintended negative consequences that generally result in worse situations than what was originally addressed.

I think we have to stop ignoring that fact and do it differently.

How? I've now read about 140 posts, and I have yet to see a proposal.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And a decline in the ratio of people in the workforce.

Our economy is grinding down towards a Eurostyle low growth / permanent structurally high unemployment rate for a reason, bub.

Off topic, but Europes economic downfall had much to do with combining the economies of too many countries sharing one monetary value. Those countries felt the very same effect as a result of the banking crisis BEGUN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, with runs on banks, massive layoffs and loss of revenue as a result. Nice try, but no rose.

Who knew? It was all the Euro... nothing at all to do with 3 day workweeks and retiring at 42.

 

[Foxfyre]

The total destruction of Asian and European ecomomies in 1945 may have had something to do with it.

Nothing like nuking and firebombing your industrial rivals to boost the economy.

But the fallacy in this theory is that it cost us much in American blood and treasure to rebuild those economies which we did.

And the fallacy in your theory is that many millions of guys deployed overseas came home needing jobs. The unemployment rate should have skyrocketed but it didn't even though a lot of the gals who had been filling in during the war elected to continue to work at paying jobs.

The lesson to be learned is that government programs will temporarily help whatever special interest group is targeted but will invariably result in unintended negative consequences that generally result in worse situations than what was originally addressed.

I think we have to stop ignoring that fact and do it differently.

How? I've now read about 140 posts, and I have yet to see a proposal.

Well then you might need a remedial reading course because I sure as hell gave you one. On the same page as your post here even.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why are you assuming that a major push toward a federal anti-poverty policy began in 1964 with the War on Poverty? Your graph shows the decline beginning in or after 1961. Coincidentally, perhaps, that's the year a series of significant anti-poverty measures (though not billed as such, politically) began under the New Frontier. Some examples:



And so on. If our standard here is "when things happened on the graph" it sounds like this agenda was a resounding (astonishing, actually) success in combating poverty.

And yet the poor are still with us. Shouldn't that be some sort of wakeup call?

The fact remains that the periods of greatest reduction in poverty in America came through prosperity in the private sector, such prosperity created by the private sector, and not via government initiative. Sure government can claim short term results from this or that initiative. And then it tends to turn a blind eye to the long term unintended negative consequences of those same initiatives.

I think it is time to stop turning a blind eye.

Thomas Sowell has lived it and has devoted a great deal of his professional career researching, studying, and writing about the history of black Americans. He has long maintained that black Americans were the group advancing the most percentagewise in prosperity overall up until LBJ's 'War on Poverty.' Since that time the advancement came to a screeching halt. He blames liberal government policies for the destruction of the black family and the institutions that supported it and for creating much of the problems we have today.

A few years ago he wrote this for Capitalist Magazine:

. . . .In the liberal vision, slums bred crime. But brand-new government housing projects almost immediately became new centers of crime and quickly degenerated into new slums. Many of these projects later had to be demolished. Unfortunately, the assumptions behind those projects were not demolished, but live on in other disastrous programs, such as Section 8 housing.

Rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years before the new 1960s attitudes toward sex spread rapidly through the schools, helped by War on Poverty money. These downward trends suddenly reversed and skyrocketed.

The murder rate had also been going down, for decades, and in 1960 was just under half of what it had been in 1934. Then the new 1960s policies toward curing the "root causes" of crime and creating new "rights" for criminals began. Rates of violent crime, including murder, skyrocketed.

The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.

Government social programs such as the War on Poverty were considered a way to reduce urban riots. Such programs increased sharply during the 1960s. So did urban riots. Later, during the Reagan administration, which was denounced for not promoting social programs, there were far fewer urban riots.

Neither the media nor most of our educational institutions question the assumptions behind the War on Poverty. Even conservatives often attribute much of the progress that has been made by lower-income people to these programs.

For example, the usually insightful quarterly magazine City Journal says in its current issue: "Beginning in the mid-sixties, the condition of most black Americans improved markedly."

That is completely false and misleading.

The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before any of the legislation and policies that are credited with producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of blacks out of poverty did not -- repeat, did not -- accelerate during the 1960s.

The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty. . . . .
Capitalism Magazine - War on Poverty Revisited

As it has been said there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

I think we as a nation need to seriously rethink this before we consign more generations of Americans to crushing poverty and permanent unemployment.

More statistics, more blame, more rhetoric. Does Sowell offer an alternative?

I reiterate my only alternative, which is EDUCATION. Will Thomas Sowell embrace the efforts of Arne Duncan who's primary target is under-performing schools? Duncan correctly states that when children are turned around, communities get turned around.

Yes. Sowell offers alternatives not unlike what many conservatives here are offering. You know, all those proposal and ideas that you are blowing off and then accuse others of having no plan? He has written numerous essays and books on the subject, and anybody who really cares about the poor, most especially the black poor, can learn a great deal by reading his stuff.

He starts with the premise that when you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Sometimes it is important NOT to try to fix something. Most especially trying to fix something that isn't broken will almost always create unintended problems and produce consequences that make the situation worse.

 

[Oddball]

Yes. Sowell offers alternatives not unlike what many conservatives here are offering. You know, all those proposal and ideas that you are blowing off and then accuse others of having no plan? He has written numerous essays and books on the subject, and anybody who really cares about the poor, most especially the black poor, can learn a great deal by reading his stuff.

He starts with the premise that when you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Sometimes it is important NOT to try to fix something. Most especially trying to fix something that isn't broken will almost always create unintended problems and produce consequences that make the situation worse.

For the committed authoritarian central planner like Naggie, "having a plan" begins and ends with devising a "new and improved" Rube Goldberg gubmint program.

Anything less is tantamount to throwing gramma out into the street and letting the chiillllldrrreeeennnn starve.

 

[Samson]

And yet the poor are still with us. Shouldn't that be some sort of wakeup call?

The fact remains that the periods of greatest reduction in poverty in America came through prosperity in the private sector, such prosperity created by the private sector, and not via government initiative. Sure government can claim short term results from this or that initiative. And then it tends to turn a blind eye to the long term unintended negative consequences of those same initiatives.

I think it is time to stop turning a blind eye.

Thomas Sowell has lived it and has devoted a great deal of his professional career researching, studying, and writing about the history of black Americans. He has long maintained that black Americans were the group advancing the most percentagewise in prosperity overall up until LBJ's 'War on Poverty.' Since that time the advancement came to a screeching halt. He blames liberal government policies for the destruction of the black family and the institutions that supported it and for creating much of the problems we have today.

A few years ago he wrote this for Capitalist Magazine:



As it has been said there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

I think we as a nation need to seriously rethink this before we consign more generations of Americans to crushing poverty and permanent unemployment.

More statistics, more blame, more rhetoric. Does Sowell offer an alternative?

I reiterate my only alternative, which is EDUCATION. Will Thomas Sowell embrace the efforts of Arne Duncan who's primary target is under-performing schools? Duncan correctly states that when children are turned around, communities get turned around.

Yes. Sowell offers alternatives not unlike what many conservatives here are offering. You know, all those proposal and ideas that you are blowing off and then accuse others of having no plan? He has written numerous essays and books on the subject, and anybody who really cares about the poor, most especially the black poor, can learn a great deal by reading his stuff.

He starts with the premise that when you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Sometimes it is important NOT to try to fix something. Most especially trying to fix something that isn't broken will almost always create unintended problems and produce consequences that make the situation worse.

I've always thought that the Civilian Conservation Corps was a great fucking deal: Pitch a tent out in the middle of nowhere, pile up picks, shovels, axes, saws in front of it. Provide cots, three square meals a day, and have a trail built to the nearest town.