A question. (For those on the right.)

[DeaconCav06]

I guess I feel like while there are certainly legitimate issues with respect to resources, there is a gray area where it begins to blend into attitude.

For example, the single mother that works full time and comes home and instead of helping with homework or makes sure it is done watches a movie. What if she goes for a drink instead?

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

Better yet, imagine if those people had just been employed with good wages, and the 1% at the top over that period of time were a little less rich? Imagine what those kids could have achieve, invented, etc. You have accepted that capitalism - and maybe a raw unbridled form you wish for - will always produce poor people. So in a sense, it has failed to wipe out poverty, too. You accept that out of hand, because it lines up with your beliefs, etc. But your sphincter is taut over this 'failure' that is perpetuated by the very headwind your beliefs force upon the poor.

More people would have been employed without the war on poverty. The war on poverty basically stopped the fall in poverty rates that had been going on due to capitalism, or what little capitalism we had even then:

 

[WakeandBake]

Oh, it stopped the decline? And that graph is your proof?

 

[Deacon923]

What that graph shows is the big jump after WWII brought by the completion of rural electrification and mass industrialization, with no small amount of government help in the form of the GI Bill and the interstate system, among other programs. For a modern comparison, the first 20 years of that graph shows the BRICs over the past 20 years.

 

[bigdoublezero]

For example, the single mother that works full time and comes home and instead of helping with homework or makes sure it is done watches a movie. What if she goes for a drink instead?

That's the cartoon part.

I'd be honestly interested to see the studies you're talking about. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

923: Of course all that stopped right about the time war on poverty kicked in. Spin it any way you want, the war on poverty has been a dismal failure.

 

[awaken]

I guess I feel like while there are certainly legitimate issues with respect to resources, there is a gray area where it begins to blend into attitude.

For example, the single mother that works full time and comes home and instead of helping with homework or makes sure it is done watches a movie. What if she goes for a drink instead?

This is the story of Dr Ben Carson, son of single mother with 3rd grade education. Although illiterate herself, she emphasized education to her kids. Made them read books and give her book reports (that she couldn't read). He grew up to be a Pediatric Neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins. Bootstraps!

He tells his story here at about the 6 min mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA

 

[RJKarl]

You're right the hundreds of millions of people who wouldn't have eaten or had a place to live over the past 45-50 years shouldn't have had it. Even if they paid taxes before and after (which almost every one does), they shouldn't have been helped.

You are one sick, delusional puppy.

 

[Deacon923]

It is hard to argue that the war on poverty has been successful based on the raw numbers alone. The problem is the counterfactual. Liberals would argue that without these programs, the impact of the many recessions we have had since 1960 would have been even worse, the poverty rate would be higher (remember the War on Poverty was started at a pretty high water mark of American prosperity relatively speaking), and there would be more human misery generally in the US. Conservatives, and especially libertarians, would argue that without all that taxing and spending the economy would have grown more and there would be more jobs and everybody would be happier.

It's hard to say what the truth is, but I personally think the truth is closer to the liberal argument. The whole rest of the history of the world - continuing today - indicates that without a government safety net, the lot of the poor gets really, really bad when the economy suffers. It also indicates that countries without strong central governments are not resilient and cannot withstand the shock of severe recessions, which spiral into depressions or worse. While the taxation load to support the programs undoubtedly has cost some growth, the countercyclical nature of the spending tends to even out extreme swings in the economic cycle that were common before WWII.

That is not to say that the existing programs are perfect or even very good at delivering aid to the poor. I am for a very radical redesign of these programs.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

If the government were to start a War on RJKarl even I would gladly help to pay for it.

 

[DeaconCav06]

Hm. In looking to find some of the studies I had read, it looks like those have been largely discredited in later research as they were focusing on parental involvement in education in things like parent teacher meetings and communication with teachers.

Naturally I have anecdotal evidence of both sides of the coin, including The Wire, but I WAS WRONG. (it's really not that hard you guys). I apologize BDZ.

 

[pourdeac]

More people would have been employed without the war on poverty. The war on poverty basically stopped the fall in poverty rates that had been going on due to capitalism, or what little capitalism we had even then:

One could also explain that inflection by a more liberal definition of poverty. We could have continued to reduce poverty percentage wise under the 1950-67 definitions, but then started to lump more people into the group wiping out those gains.

We also opened up our borders to much wider immigration in 1968 which was the low point of percentage foreign born at ~4.7%

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/10/historical_data_on_foreign_born_population_percentage.html

 

[DeacMan]

Apparently it isn't, or else we wouldn't be having this thread with all kinds of stats about the poverty problem that posters feel compelled to blame on poor people fucking and having babies. Right? You can't have it both ways. Or hell, apparently you can. :noidea:

The working poor have next to zero political or economic power in America. They are the collateral damage of the oligarchy who, despite jhmd's dogged insistence, don't give a rat's ass about them, and who's bottom lines look a lot better with things just the way they are. Come on, if they had so much faith in the American working poor they would pay them decent wages instead of exploiting slave labor overseas and throwing a few nickels at welfare programs, right?

Follow the money, don't be dumb.

Capitalism is the greatest force in the history of the world for lifting people out of poverty. That is not even debatable.

You will argue it is all about the government and aid. But if you follow the money that means you follow the investment. And investment seeks return. It is the liberalization of markets around the world that has easily been the greatest force in reducing poverty.

People like you are called socialists. Embrace it. It is embracing failure.

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

 

[WakeandBake]

Capitalism is the greatest force in the history of the world for lifting people out of poverty. That is not even debatable.

You will argue it is all about the government and aid. But if you follow the money that means you follow the investment. And investment seeks return. It is the liberalization of markets around the world that has easily been the greatest force in reducing poverty.

People like you are called socialists. Embrace it. It is embracing failure.

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

You don't read well at all. You are slow witted. Embraced it. It is embracing failure.

I have argued over and over that it is about the playing field, about government spending and jobs, and about bad money in politics. I have stated on this thread and the others that I do not want people on aid either, that it is about opportunity.

 

[bigdoublezero]

Hm. In looking to find some of the studies I had read, it looks like those have been largely discredited in later research as they were focusing on parental involvement in education in things like parent teacher meetings and communication with teachers.

Naturally I have anecdotal evidence of both sides of the coin, including The Wire, but I WAS WRONG. (it's really not that hard you guys). I apologize BDZ.

Word. I think it's easy to paint cartoons of all the addicts and welfare queens and deadbeat dads, but in general, most poor people work really fucking hard all day long and want what's best for their kids. Being completely devoted to the education of your children is easier said than done the further you climb down the ladder, and it can't be solved with bootstraps.

 

[jhmd2000]

This is the story of Dr Ben Carson, son of single mother with 3rd grade education. Although illiterate herself, she emphasized education to her kids. Made them read books and give her book reports (that she couldn't read). He grew up to be a Pediatric Neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins. Bootstraps!

He tells his story here at about the 6 min mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA

For a black guy, he sure has a lot of white privilege. As I've learned in the Tunnels, there's no other explanation for educational success. Certainly his mother's emphasis on education in the home is just a coincidence, right? Privilege wins again. One day I hope to have as much white privilege the Asians who get discriminated against because of their race in admissions practices.

 

[pourdeac]

One could also explain that inflection by a more liberal definition of poverty. We could have continued to reduce poverty percentage wise under the 1950-67 definitions, but then started to lump more people into the group wiping out those gains.

In support of that...evidently the modern definition of poverty was adopted in 1965 right at the inflection point.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/papers/hptgssiv.htm

In May 1965 — just over a year after the Johnson Administration had initiated the War on Poverty — the Office of Economic Opportunity adopted Orshansky's poverty thresholds as a working or quasi-official definition of poverty.

That definition was originally set by food costs:

Orshansky based her poverty thresholds on the economy food plan — the cheapest of four food plans developed by the Department of Agriculture. The actual combinations of foods in the food plans, devised by Agriculture Department dietitians using complex procedures, constituted nutritionally adequate diets; the Agriculture Department described the economy food plan as being "designed for temporary or emergency use when funds are low."

Orshansky knew from the Department of Agriculture's 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey (the latest available such survey at the time) that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax money income on food in 1955. Accordingly, she calculated poverty thresholds for families of three or more persons by taking the dollar costs of the economy food plan for families of those sizes and multiplying the costs by a factor of three — the "multiplier."

So the threshold was officially set in 1965 (unofficial in 1963) by food costs for a minimal acceptable food plan (determined by the government) times 3. Afterwords it was simply indexed to CPI. The current family of 4 threshold is $23,440...which implies the food costs for a minimum "emergency" diet are close to $600 a month using the original method of calculation. That's 218 dozens of eggs per month, or 87 eggs per day (US average cost $2.68). Basic costs have dropped compared to CPI.

 

[Deacfreak07]

In support of that...evidently the modern definition of poverty was adopted in 1965 right at the inflection point.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/papers/hptgssiv.htm

In May 1965 — just over a year after the Johnson Administration had initiated the War on Poverty — the Office of Economic Opportunity adopted Orshansky's poverty thresholds as a working or quasi-official definition of poverty.

That definition was originally set by food costs:

Orshansky based her poverty thresholds on the economy food plan — the cheapest of four food plans developed by the Department of Agriculture. The actual combinations of foods in the food plans, devised by Agriculture Department dietitians using complex procedures, constituted nutritionally adequate diets; the Agriculture Department described the economy food plan as being "designed for temporary or emergency use when funds are low."

Orshansky knew from the Department of Agriculture's 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey (the latest available such survey at the time) that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax money income on food in 1955. Accordingly, she calculated poverty thresholds for families of three or more persons by taking the dollar costs of the economy food plan for families of those sizes and multiplying the costs by a factor of three — the "multiplier."

So the threshold was officially set in 1965 (unofficial in 1963) by food costs for a minimal acceptable food plan (determined by the government) times 3. Afterwords it was simply indexed to CPI. The current family of 4 threshold is $23,440...which implies the food costs for a minimum "emergency" diet are close to $600 a month using the original method of calculation. That's 218 dozens of eggs per month, or 87 eggs per day (US average cost $2.68). Basic costs have dropped compared to CPI.

Food is also no longer the primary expenditure in an average budget. Housing and child care are IIRC. That system is very dated and inadequate.

 

[Deacon923]

Here is a very good article about the overall shoddy design of the patchwork safety net and its particular impact on fathers and marriage. Because of the way the programs work, the best economic setup for poor people is for a mom to have a boyfriend who is not the father of her children. If she lives with the dad, his income counts against benefits, and if she marries boyfriend, his income counts against benefits, so the system actively discourages marrying anyone. This problem is compounded by the ongoing disappearance of low-skill jobs for men, especially men with criminal records, which means that the men cannot make enough money to make up for loss of benefits that would ensue if they married the women. Further, men are actively discouraged from even cohabiting with their girlfriend/mother of their children because if they do the family loses benefits, so they have little opportunity to develop positive relationships with their kids even if they want to. Most of this is based on the outdated notion that the "right" way to be a family is a breadwinning dad and a stay at home mom, which just doesn't work anymore for poor families because dad cannot find a job - mom is more likely to be employable.

The conclusion drawn will vary by ideological slant, but there's no denying that the existing system is pretty f'd up.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/how-anti-poverty-programs-marginalize-fathers/283984/

ETA: I also note that the people in this story are living packed into a small house with 6 kids and about 4 or 5 adults, which is not too far from the third world conditions, or the condition of migrant workers, that some posters believe should be a basis for comparison to the condition of the poor in America.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

I note that the people in this story are suffering the consequences of copulating irresponsibly and committing violent crime. One strategy for these disadvantaged people to have avoided being on welfare would have been to contain their animal urges.