The tragedy of Chávez

[Steeplerot]

The gap between the richest and poorest decreased with TGS.

This is where the long term benefit is.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
No such thing. Capitalism by nature undermines the will of the people for profits of the elites.

By elites, you mean politicians, right? I agree. Capitalism is used as the guise for governments to rule over us, rather than represent us. Government is the problem. Glad to see you coming around.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
He also has cut poverty in half but don't mention that

Hahaha... that would be a temporary fix seeing as how he accomplished this by confiscating the property of wealthy people to hand out to the poor. Once that wave passes get ready for the aftermath... a country with no entrepreneurs.

Solving poverty doesn't involve handouts... as the policies of LBJ have so obviously pointed out over the last 50 years.

isn't the poverty rate half of what it was before the great society?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Craig - you are wrong

Link

In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004.

The rate has been reduced from the 50s; yet it has been unabled to be trimmed lower.

Generation of dependancy?

strange, poverty going to a recent high during a very bad recession, what a strnage coorelation

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Solution... real democracy and a capitalist system that is based on the rule of law similar to ours and nearly every other successful western country.

Nazi Germany was incredibly successful and they had a society based on dictatorship and a centralized economy. If it wasn't for a few key decisions during WW2, Nazi Germany would be a major world power. Does that make dictatorship and a state-rune economy the best form of government? Of course not. The best form of government doesn't exist and prosperity is mostly because of historical contigency, not because of some inherent greatness in a system.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
No such thing. Capitalism by nature undermines the will of the people for profits of the elites.

Capitalism is used as the guise for governments to rule over us.

Funny how you right-wing Libertarian guys sound like Maoists if you swap out one big C word when apologizing for the failure of ideology.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Craig - you are wrong

Link

In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004.

The rate has been reduced from the 50s; yet it has been unabled to be trimmed lower.

Generation of dependancy?

Pwned!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Solution... real democracy and a capitalist system that is based on the rule of law similar to ours and nearly every other successful western country.

Nazi Germany was incredibly successful and they had a society based on dictatorship and a centralized economy. If it wasn't for a few key decisions during WW2, Nazi Germany would be a major world power. Does that make dictatorship and a state-rune economy the best form of government? Of course not. The best form of government doesn't exist and prosperity is mostly because of historical contigency, not because of some inherent greatness in a system.

Nazi germany economic power wasnt upto par nor a focus of the state ironically. And during the 1930's they saw a major drop in real income. The thing was to the avg German it looked good because people were employed via a major militarization program. They also deficit spent a shitload. Many believe the World War was not only because of Hitlers desire to colonize the Soviet Union for the German people but also because the only way they werent going to see an economic collapse was to pillage wealth from their neighbors through war. It should be a lesson to us all in the states with the amount of spending we are doing.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Craig - you are wrong

Link

In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004.

The rate has been reduced from the 50s; yet it has been unabled to be trimmed lower.

Generation of dependancy?

Common Courtesy, you are wrong - your quote agrees with my post.

Your quote says the rate was 22.1% in 'the late 50's' - that's just before JFK became president, and is at the high end of my saying it had been 'around 20% before'.

Then I said the JFK/LBJ years permnantly reduced it by about a third; your quote shows it going down by half during that period in the 60's (by 1973).

Then your quote goes on to say the poverty rate has remained at levels about a third below the old rate - as my post said.

You say the opposite of what your own quote shows. It's gone up a little under Republicans, and down a little under democrats, but held pretty close to that 1/3 lower rate.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Craig - you are wrong

Link

In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004.

The rate has been reduced from the 50s; yet it has been unabled to be trimmed lower.

Generation of dependancy?

Pwned!

Why is it that so many posted that say that word, actually do it to themselves?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

The poverty rate was on its way down, I dont know what to tell you.

How about facts? Common Courtesy posted some, and they showed the poverty rate 22% in 'the late 50's' just before JFK took office, hardly 'going down' from the years before.

IMO JFK did not have the same idea as Johnson. JFK was more a carrot on a stick president, Johnson a handout president. The first program went into affect in 64.

It's all relative; Republicans at the time mostly ran around calling JFK a socisalist (little has changed, Obama's a socialist, FDR was a socialist).

LBJ's programs were more ambitious than Kennedy's, but they were largely Kennedy's programs; the country was willing to pass the programs, the same way that Kennedy's civil rights bill had stalled while he was in office, but the country's sympathies shifted to support it and LBJ got it passed. The difference wasn't as fundamental as you suggest; and was largely caused by Kennedy simply having a much more difficult time getting what he wanted from Congress.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...5/Poverty_59_to_05.png

The War on Poverty reduced poverty to a level. But we are talking a few % points. Which is close to what we saw without the war on poverty. Without concrete numbers I'd guess the poverty rate in 64 was 18%. By 69 it was down to about 12% and hasnt moved much since. [/quote]

You, too, simply prove my point with your reference. At least you have shifted from "the war on poverty has been a dismal failure" to "The War on Poverty reduced poverty to a level." Quite a 180 - but in the right direction. You try to minimize it as 'a few % points'; it's about a third lower, as I said all along, and that's huge - if not enough. But we haven't had any presidents who have followed the liberal policies like JFK and LBJ to reduce it further.

You point out that it was reduced under JFK/LBJ, and hasn't moved much with more conservative presidents - proving my point - but say it as if you are disagreeing.

I am pretty sure if we found numbers dating to the mid 50's we would have poverty rates near 25%.

Why be 'pretty sure' when you can get the numbers? Check them, say, 1940-1960. Before that, the Great Depression was an anomoly that would distort the numbers.

In the process we created an underclass of economic serfs beholden to politicians for a handout. And create a monster in Medicare\Medicaid that is set to help bankrupt this country.

In the process, we created a more educated, more prosperous, more productive, more healthy population.

Though obviously the education part has had areas of failure; some citizens still run around claiming the great successes of Medicare are "a monster".

And who do not understand the reasons for the high cost of medical care involving the private sector's abuses - how Medicare is actually highly efficient and effective.

With the exception of the drug bill passed under Bush, which was designed as a giveaway to the drug companies, who were the top Republican donors.

(There's talk of the Democrats now removing the Republican language that prohibits the government from negotiating the drug prices - and it's overdue).

We're two for two on people who claim to disagree posting facts that agree with my post. Keep 'em coming. It's a breath of fresh air from SpinJohn's distortions.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
He also has cut poverty in half but don't mention that

Hahaha... that would be a temporary fix seeing as how he accomplished this by confiscating the property of wealthy people to hand out to the poor. Once that wave passes get ready for the aftermath... a country with no entrepreneurs.

Solving poverty doesn't involve handouts... as the policies of LBJ have so obviously pointed out over the last 50 years.

isn't the poverty rate half of what it was before the great society?

Closer to a third in long-term trends, but isn't it funny how the programs could hardly be clearer as having helped, but you get people like one calling it a "dismal failure".

Just example number 4,000 in the power of ideology to blind some people.

Steady economic progress for the middle class that just happend to correlate to Democratic presidents (and one Republican with a top tax rate of 91%, and who was clearly more liberal socially than modern Republicans, calling those who were opposed to social security "nuts" and decrying the influence of the military-industrial complex) from FDR to LBJ, but they don't get the point.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Craig - you are wrong

Link

In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004.

The rate has been reduced from the 50s; yet it has been unabled to be trimmed lower.

Generation of dependancy?

Common Courtesy, you are wrong - your quote agrees with my post.

Your quote says the rate was 22.1% in 'the late 50's' - that's just before JFK became president, and is at the high end of my saying it had been 'around 20% before'.

Then I said the JFK/LBJ years permnantly reduced it by about a third; your quote shows it going down by half during that period in the 60's (by 1973).

Then your quote goes on to say the poverty rate has remained at levels about a third below the old rate - as my post said.

You say the opposite of what your own quote shows. It's gone up a little under Republicans, and down a little under democrats, but held pretty close to that 1/3 lower rate.

My post was to provide numbers for pre JFK. I was not intending on providing a dispute to what happened afterwards. You had one number, Genx had a different range.

It looks like the difference is split.

Again, people can choose what numbers they want.

My comment was directed at the 10% difference between your claim and the numbers that sowed up in the link.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
No such thing. Capitalism by nature undermines the will of the people for profits of the elites.

Capitalism is used as the guise for governments to rule over us.

Funny how you right-wing Libertarian guys sound like Maoists if you swap out one big C word when apologizing for the failure of ideology.

So you can't argue with my position then?

 

[ProfJohn]

The reduction of poverty in the 1950s and 60s was most likely caused by the massive economic growth that occurred post WW2.

And then starting in the late 1950s you have the interstate highway system that also would have provided great income growth across the country.

If it was all due to government policies then why did the poverty rate stop shrinking in the early 70s and hasn't changed much since then?

Also... how much of the drop was 'created' by just a standardization of the poverty rate and the creating of the 'threshold' concept?

 

[Genx87]

Craig most of the programs enacted in the great society happened post 64, the bigger ones in 65-66. The number was already falling before that as I pointed out. I said it is a dismal failure because it never achieved the kind of success they wanted(essentially erase poverty) and it enslaved generations of people into economic feudalism where they rely on the govt and the politicians to sustain themsevles. If you cant understand that I cant help you.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

they just had another wannbe chavez clown in honduras. thank goodness the congress, supreme court and military took that scumbag out.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Craig most of the programs enacted in the great society happened post 64, the bigger ones in 65-66. The number was already falling before that as I pointed out. I said it is a dismal failure because it never achieved the kind of success they wanted(essentially erase poverty) and it enslaved generations of people into economic feudalism where they rely on the govt and the politicians to sustain themsevles. If you cant understand that I cant help you.

Yes, as I said, LBJ was able to get the 'JFK agenda' passed more in civil rights and anti-poverty programs, and he did so.

The fact that JFK had anti-poverty policies as well, but got less passed, is not inconsistent with the fact that his own efforts met with some success in reducing poverty.

We have a track record of many years before JFK and LBJ of the poverty rate being consistently higher.

You seem to be trying to mis-portray JFK as somehow not having anti-poverty programs, to be implying the argument that JFK did not do anything like LBJ did and poverty just magically began to change pattern after a long history duiring JFK's 3 years in office, continuing to do so under LBJ as he got more passed, and you are trying to claim by implication, it seems to me that this somehow disproves the JFK/LBJ anti-poverty programs.

JFK had increased his anti-poverty efforts each year, and by 1963 had ordered Walter Heller to create a major initiative - which he was working on when JFK was killed.

That initiative was what became the 'Great Society' programs, designed by two JFK men, Heller and Ted Sorensen. It's where Kennedy was headed, though LBJ went further.

The program LBJ passed created the Economic Opportunity Office, headed by JFK brother in law Sargent Shriver. Reagan abolished the office from the form he inherited it.

You further try to argue that the programs were a "dismal failure" while cutting poverty over a third, with the simple argument that it didn't meet some unspecified 'wanted' level.

That's a ridiculous argument. To even start to make it you would need to cite these wanted levels', and then why cutting poverty over a third instead of a bit more is so terrible.

It's true the programs had flaws, that things happened that didn't help - like the riots - but the bottom line is that America had a century after the civil war to treat blacks equally and failed to do, and it was only by the 60's, after baby steps had started, that Democratic leadership and the Civil Rights movement finally reached the point to actually passed the historic Civil Rights Acts and to lead the country to one of our proudest turning points in history, to where soon after and ever since, the nation far more supports equality.

That period was a turning point on issues of race and poverty - to a culture we take for granted today and would not want reversed.

Here's one summary cut and paste of some of what the programs did and did not do:

The creators of the War on Poverty had hoped to create a flexible approach that would allow local communities to experiment with what worked best. Although such an approach failed to materialize, the Office of Economic Opportunity sponsored important research into the causes of poverty and the best means of alleviating it. The economists in the Division of Research, Planning and Evaluation viewed the poverty legislation as an avenue for policy evaluation and research. Hence, it seemed natural to them to test the notion of a guaranteed income that would be paid both to the working and the nonworking poor, to families headed by women, and to "intact" families that contained both a father and a mother living at home. In a remarkable development, the economists secured approval to conduct one of the largest social experiments in the nation's history, undertaken in the late 1960s and 1970s and known as the Negative Income Tax Experiments. These experiments yielded valuable data on the effects of social programs on people's behavior and in particular on how the receipt of income from the government affected labor supply and such crucial life decisions as whether to marry.

The War on Poverty, then, failed to end poverty and raised questions about the federal government's ability to provide effective social services. At the same time, it spawned several programs, notably Head Start, that have withstood the test of time and been evaluated as an effective means of improving educational performance. Furthermore, the era of the War on Poverty witnessed the passage of programs such as Medicare that have become enduring parts of American life and improved the access of Americans to health care and other vital services.

The war on poverty only had a brief window for strong support - and was immediately faced with competing issues such as the Vietnam war that blocked a second LBJ term.

The war also drained the budget, reducing support for the social spending.