Income and Insight

[Foxfyre]

the civil rights and progressive legacy has made american life better, particularly for the lowest-income, women and minorities. granted that, the democrats have had a handle on the lower income demography for 80+ years. these groups seem to support the dem agenda's principles on the table today, but i'd imagine this history draws some benefits in these doubtful times.

they say all questions are valid, but i don't adhere to that, fox. i think some questions posed as PC has are loaded with righteous intentions - invalidating them by way of prejudice. i've never felt a need to dance around that, and the party putting this question forward has a track-record of this sort of bollucks. it's betrayed this time by subsequent commentary and convenient omissions of the facts being discussed.

LOL. You'll forgive me if I have to see a pot/kettle analogy in an opinion that is based on prejudice re an individual or ideology while accusing the same of prejudice.

From my perspective, and from decades of experience working with low income people both as vocation and avocation, it is necessary first to separate out the temporarily low income--college students, temporarily unemployed, those volunarily on sabbatical and such--before analyzing the dynamics involved.

Then you look at the more or less 'permanent' low income demographic and how or why they acquired that status. And from my perspective, it is those well intentioned but poorly thought out 'helpful' government programs that assigned large groups of people to a permanent underclass. And yet that same underclass mostly does not seem to understand that. Those who see the light, generally manage to dig themselves out.

It has nothing to do with political parties or who is in the White House. It has everything to do with the net effects of programs to 'benefit the poor'. I am speaking in strictly general terms and overall effects irregardless of the occasional exception that those who ardently defend such programs will almot certainly evoke rather than look at the whole picture. The conclusion I have reached is that too many well intentioned government programs to benerfit the 'poor' have in fact created a permanent underclass of 'poor'. And, as governments generally will do, some in government now know that it is to government's advantage to maintain that permanent underclass.

I realize that you on the Left don't agree with my perspective and I'm already braced for the inevitable incoming.

But unless somebody can demonstrate how I'm wrong, I will continue to believe I'm on pretty solid footing here.

And THAT is what the thesis of this thread as it relates to the lowest income group should be about. I am wondering if any on the left are capable of discussing it on those terms rather than continuing to focus on somebody to demonize.

 

[FA_Q2]

Fox
Then you look at the more or less 'permanent' low income demongraphic and how or why they acquired that status. And from my perspective, it is those well intentioned but poorly thought out 'helpful' government programs that assigned large groups of people to a permanent underclass. And yet that same underclass mostly does not seem to understand that. Those who see the light, generally manage to dig themselves out.

I could not agree more. Many of those programs that are designed to help the poor end up creating a sense of owed or right to the things that are freely given and that does not help to motivate people to get out of the situation they are in. There will always be an underclass, there has to be because there has to be the low wage worker that cleans floors or flips burgers. I understand that dynamic but the quest for 'fairness' has not helped the situation and will not until there are proper structures put in place to administer those programs.

We have all seen this....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqUvCc]YouTube - OBAMA'S GONNA PAY FOR MY GAS...[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox
Then you look at the more or less 'permanent' low income demongraphic and how or why they acquired that status. And from my perspective, it is those well intentioned but poorly thought out 'helpful' government programs that assigned large groups of people to a permanent underclass. And yet that same underclass mostly does not seem to understand that. Those who see the light, generally manage to dig themselves out.

I could not agree more. Many of those programs that are designed to help the poor end up creating a sense of owed or right to the things that are freely given and that does not help to motivate people to get out of the situation they are in. There will always be an underclass, there has to be because there has to be the low wage worker that cleans floors or flips burgers. I understand that dynamic but the quest for 'fairness' has not helped the situation and will not until there are proper structures put in place to administer those programs.

Thank you FA for actually addressing the topic.

Yes there are those who have become so dependent on government that the thought of breaking that dependency is terrifying to them. And there are the completely gullible who still believe in various versions of Santa Claus, fairy godmothers, and geese that lay golden eggs. Such people will vote for those they most trust to keep the money flowing to them and that becomes more important than ANY other consideration. And don't think that those in government who seek to increase their own power, prestige, influence,and personal fortunes don't know that.

I disagree that there 'has to be the low wage worker' that cleans floors or flips burgers. If such people don't exist, then enterprising Americans find others ways to get the floors cleaned or burgers flipped. The law of supply and demand works re wages as well as it works anywhere else. If there is a profit to be made, there will always be people willing to earn it.

I agree that there WILL be the low wage worker because there will always be people who need entry level jobs in order to make a little spending money, develop a work ethic, acquire references, learn a trade, etc. Once in between good paying jobs, I took a temp job at minimum wage just to help out the proprietor who was a friend. I had so much fun on that job I wound up staying a year. At minimum wage. But was I disadvantaged? Hell no.

But there are those who settle for low wages and resent being stuck in dead end jobs that they see as their lot in life. They don't believe you when you tell them they can better themselves, can improve their situation, can get out of the hole. They are so conditioned to believe they can't do it that they don't. And they approve of those who agree with them that they are disadvantaged victims and justified in being bitter and angry.

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree that there 'has to be the low wage worker' that cleans floors or flips burgers. If such people don't exist, then enterprising Americans find others ways to get the floors cleaned or burgers flipped. The law of supply and demand works re wages as well as it works anywhere else. If there is a profit to be made, there will always be people willing to earn it.

Certainly, they would but that would not eliminate the low wage worker. Let me put it another way.
If everyone was a hard working, diligent individual and the lowest paying job earned 70K a year working as, say, an engineer then THAT would be the new low wage worker that would barely make ends meet. The cost of goods and living will rise to meet the new standard and adjust to where the population is at. That is the nature of capitalism. There will always be a class system within a capitalist system. It is that stratification that makes high income and rich possible. If we were all middleclass then the system would not work, that is what socialism and communism encompass. That is the ideal but it will never be the case because of the persistent existence of those that are unwilling to apply themselves or believe that they cannot improve as well as the persistence of people that will push the envelope and over achive creating the upper classes. That truly is the beauty in capitalism. It recognizes and uses that basic truth in the same manner that it uses greed and focuses these truths into a positive force. However, we must acknowledge that under the current system there will ALWAYS be a poor segment of society and there will ALWAYS be a rich segment of society. The poor segment will have less money in relation to those that have more.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree that there 'has to be the low wage worker' that cleans floors or flips burgers. If such people don't exist, then enterprising Americans find others ways to get the floors cleaned or burgers flipped. The law of supply and demand works re wages as well as it works anywhere else. If there is a profit to be made, there will always be people willing to earn it.

Certainly, they would but that would not eliminate the low wage worker. Let me put it another way.
If everyone was a hard working, diligent individual and the lowest paying job earned 70K a year working as, say, an engineer then THAT would be the new low wage worker that would barely make ends meet. The cost of goods and living will rise to meet the new standard and adjust to where the population is at. That is the nature of capitalism. There will always be a class system within a capitalist system. It is that stratification that makes high income and rich possible. If we were all middleclass then the system would not work, that is what socialism and communism encompass. That is the ideal but it will never be the case because of the persistent existence of those that are unwilling to apply themselves or believe that they cannot improve. That truly is the beauty in capitalism. It recognizes and uses that basic truth in the same manner that it uses greed and focuses these truths into a positive force. However, we must acknowledge that under the current system there will ALWAYS be a poor segment of society, that segment that will have less money in relation to those that have more.

But don't you think that is the nature of supply and demand? If there is a shortage of people willing to clean floors, then those willing to do that work will accept the best offer they can get to do that. And those needing their floors cleaned pay more to attract people who will do that. Our neighborhood McDonalds pays up to $2/hour over minimum wage to attract workers they can depend on. If they could get the same workers for minimum wage, they would certainly still be starting people at minimum wage. And if the floor cleaning or burger flipping market is over saturated, the smart worker looks for a less saturated market to plug into.

And that is how capitalism in a free market works.

Those who are more socialist minded think that supply and demand should not be the determining factor in what people get paid. And if the floor cleaner who can't get work as a floor cleaner, he deserves to be compensated by the rest of us until the floor cleaning market improves. Even if it never does.

So who are you going to vote for? The guy who points you to retraining to support yourself? Or the guy who is willing to support you no matter what?

 

[Bfgrn]

I disagree that there 'has to be the low wage worker' that cleans floors or flips burgers. If such people don't exist, then enterprising Americans find others ways to get the floors cleaned or burgers flipped. The law of supply and demand works re wages as well as it works anywhere else. If there is a profit to be made, there will always be people willing to earn it.

Certainly, they would but that would not eliminate the low wage worker. Let me put it another way.
If everyone was a hard working, diligent individual and the lowest paying job earned 70K a year working as, say, an engineer then THAT would be the new low wage worker that would barely make ends meet. The cost of goods and living will rise to meet the new standard and adjust to where the population is at. That is the nature of capitalism. There will always be a class system within a capitalist system. It is that stratification that makes high income and rich possible. If we were all middleclass then the system would not work, that is what socialism and communism encompass. That is the ideal but it will never be the case because of the persistent existence of those that are unwilling to apply themselves or believe that they cannot improve as well as the persistence of people that will push the envelope and over achive creating the upper classes. That truly is the beauty in capitalism. It recognizes and uses that basic truth in the same manner that it uses greed and focuses these truths into a positive force. However, we must acknowledge that under the current system there will ALWAYS be a poor segment of society and there will ALWAYS be a rich segment of society. The poor segment will have less money in relation to those that have more.

What about in a capitalist country when greed is a negative, destructive force. When a class of rich and powerful elite are able to game the system, our representative government, and buy or influence legislation, author laws and regulations (or remove them) to creates socialism for themselves? When right and wrong are no longer a valid measure of civic action, and replaced instead with lawful and unlawful?

That is what has been happening in America for at least the last 30 years. Wrongs and greed driven actions have become 'lawful', but they are still wrong. Your focus on the attitude of 'entitlement is totally misplaced. You need only look as far as the authors of the recent economic crisis...Wall Street, banks and corporations to find a sense of 'entitlement' that will literally turn your stomach.

The "Great Soul" Mahatma Gandhi said, "There are people in the world so hungry that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread."

Those that believe taking away that bread is all that is needed to fix poverty are not only unethical, they will be LETHAL, to those they pretend to save.

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree that there 'has to be the low wage worker' that cleans floors or flips burgers. If such people don't exist, then enterprising Americans find others ways to get the floors cleaned or burgers flipped. The law of supply and demand works re wages as well as it works anywhere else. If there is a profit to be made, there will always be people willing to earn it.

Certainly, they would but that would not eliminate the low wage worker. Let me put it another way.
If everyone was a hard working, diligent individual and the lowest paying job earned 70K a year working as, say, an engineer then THAT would be the new low wage worker that would barely make ends meet. The cost of goods and living will rise to meet the new standard and adjust to where the population is at. That is the nature of capitalism. There will always be a class system within a capitalist system. It is that stratification that makes high income and rich possible. If we were all middleclass then the system would not work, that is what socialism and communism encompass. That is the ideal but it will never be the case because of the persistent existence of those that are unwilling to apply themselves or believe that they cannot improve. That truly is the beauty in capitalism. It recognizes and uses that basic truth in the same manner that it uses greed and focuses these truths into a positive force. However, we must acknowledge that under the current system there will ALWAYS be a poor segment of society, that segment that will have less money in relation to those that have more.

But don't you think that is the nature of supply and demand? If there is a shortage of people willing to clean floors, then those willing to do that work will accept the best offer they can get to do that. And those needing their floors cleaned pay more to attract people who will do that. Our neighborhood McDonalds pays up to $2/hour over minimum wage to attract workers they can depend on. If they could get the same workers for minimum wage, they would certainly still be starting people at minimum wage. And if the floor cleaning or burger flipping market is over saturated, the smart worker looks for a less saturated market to plug into.

And that is how capitalism in a free market works.

Those who are more socialist minded think that supply and demand should not be the determining factor in what people get paid. And if the floor cleaner who can't get work as a floor cleaner, he deserves to be compensated by the rest of us until the floor cleaning market improves. Even if it never does.

So who are you going to vote for? The guy who points you to retraining to support yourself? Or the guy who is willing to support you no matter what?

Of course that is how the system works and I love it. I am reminded of all the times I have heard people vote based on their wallet. It is a shame that people act that way instead pf actually looking at the choices that are presented to them. It is continually asked in political races with incumbents "are you better off not than __ years ago?" I hate that question because oft times it is not the incumbent that caused the "better" but social and economic cycles. I do not care if things are improving, I care if the person in question effected or impaired that change and whether or not they will cause positive change in the next cycle. The OP points that the poor often vote based off their belief that democrats and specifically OB will continue to support them. I would somewhat agree with that though it seems to me that certain groups (mainly minorities and poor) identify with a specific political group and not an ideology. It is expressed here in these polls where the poor support OB but I would be willing to bet they could not point to a specific policy as to why other than brad generalizations without clear understanding of the actual policies put in place. An excellent example would be HC good because... Within the black community this is well represented as well where they are largely democrats. During the election I am reminded of a bit that featured a reporter asking black voters if they supported OB's decision to stay in Iraq until the job was finished, expanded drilling with the building of nuclear plants and his VP pick of Palin and sat astonished at the myriad of yes answers with EXPLANATIONS as to why they supported said positions. It is a sad disgusting voter base we have in this nation.


It seems to me that many people are like this and it is perpetuated by societies norms: if you are poor you MUST be a democrat, if you are black you MUST be a democrat. On the other hand you have the rich closely divided here at 48%. I feel that you are more likely to take an interest and actually look at the issues as a well off individual for one simply because you have the means and also there most certainly IS a higher likelihood of middle class and up of being more responsible and hard working than the poorer class. Don't take me the wrong way, it is not a solid truth, there are many hard working and responsible poor people but many of those individuals make it out of poverty and join the middle class and up crowd.

 

[Foxfyre]

It seems to me that many people are like this and it is perpetuated by societies norms: if you are poor you MUST be a democrat, if you are black you MUST be a democrat. On the other hand you have the rich closely divided here at 48%. I feel that you are more likely to take an interest and actually look at the issues as a well off individual for one simply because you have the means and also there most certainly IS a higher likelihood of middle class and up of being more responsible and hard working than the poorer class. Don't take me the wrong way, it is not a solid truth, there are many hard working and responsible poor people but many of those individuals make it out of poverty and join the middle class and up crowd.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to FA_Q2 again. Damn it.

Well this and the rest of your post merits rep when I can give it to you.

I can't speak for PC, but I'm guessing you just pinpointed where she might have been going with this with the OP. I hope she'll chime back in soon and verify or clarify that.

But I think the ultimate conclusion is this:

If you belong to a particular demographic you are EXPECTED to support a certain party or person or you betray your class, or others like you, or your race, or something. It doesn't matter one whit what policies that person or party promotes. It only matters that they have your loyalty. And vote.

 

[FA_Q2]

What about in a capitalist country when greed is a negative, destructive force. When a class of rich and powerful elite are able to game the system, our representative government, and buy or influence legislation, author laws and regulations (or remove them) to creates socialism for themselves? When right and wrong are no longer a valid measure of civic action, and replaced instead with lawful and unlawful?

That is what has been happening in America for at least the last 30 years. Wrongs and greed driven actions have become 'lawful', but they are still wrong. Your focus on the attitude of 'entitlement is totally misplaced. You need only look as far as the authors of the recent economic crisis...Wall Street, banks and corporations to find a sense of 'entitlement' that will literally turn your stomach.

The "Great Soul" Mahatma Gandhi said, "There are people in the world so hungry that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread."

Those that believe taking away that bread is all that is needed to fix poverty are not only unethical, they will be LETHAL, to those they pretend to save.

Do not mix the system of government (republic) with the system of commerce (capitalism). Greed is not a force that a republic focuses to good purpose, it simply negates some of its ills with that constitution that governs our rights. Unfortunately, money and greed is bleeding over to our government and that is not a good thing. I would agree that there needs to be change in that aspect and spoke a little to that in another forum. Caps on donations from any single source would be a good start. I would say that your 'last 30 years' and my outlook on entitlement is misplaced as overreaching and wrong. There is an issue with the poor and entitlement and it is keeping many people down. I will get into that in a minute. Wall street and the banks do not have an entitlement problem. They have a legal problem. The politicians in this country not only are influenced by the amount of cash that is flowing to them (a problem as I have stated earlier in this post) but the ones that are against the banks are simply not as intelligent as them. Laws that are written to regulate the banks are circumvented because of the insane legalese that they are written in and the banks with all their resources are smart enough to hire people that can navigate around them. I stand by the fact that GOVERNMENT is the problem here. Separate the two, get the government out of the banking and bailouts and there will not be an issue. This is going into another topic so I will digress for the moment...

Your second point seems to hint that the poor NEED these handouts to survive and I will state that it is flat out wrong. No one is supporting that we take ALL aid from everyone but what is considered poor in this nation is rich for many others. The poor are not hungry unless it is of their own accord. I have seen people get alcohol instead of food with food stamps, buy beer and cigarettes and THEN not have money for food and watched the welfare checks roll in only to be frivolously spent or used on drugs. You do not truly respect what you have unless you had to work for it. I do not mind homeless shelters to feed and shelter the poor but why do you feel that it is necessary to PAY poor people for not accomplishing anything?

Prohibition has been a complete and total FAILURE and it is precisely why you cannot support an entitlement mentality. What you end up creating is a group of individuals that perpetuate in their state because it is easier to continue then it is to break through and in many cases BETTER. There are many instances where working harder would net you LESS than taking the handouts. What would behoove an individual to work harder for less? That is the problem with handouts that have no strings attached. You get a fuzzy feeling inside, they become slaves to the system.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yea, I keep getting that for you as well.
You must spread some reputation around before giving it to foxfyre again.

There are just so few here that are willing to debate and deserve rep that it is hard to 'spread it around.' Even with those that I disagree with continually like antagon and try and give rep.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yea, I keep getting that for you as well.
You must spread some reputation around before giving it to foxfyre again.

There are just so few here that are willing to debate and deserve rep that it is hard to 'spread it around.' Even with those that I disagree with continually like antagon and try and give rep.

Oh yeah. Antagon is just a tad far enough left he can't resist slipping into ad hominem now and then, but for the most part he is one I love to debate with because he usually will debate the subject with something more substantive than ad hominem or deflection to something else.

You're both okay in my book.

 

[Bfgrn]

What about in a capitalist country when greed is a negative, destructive force. When a class of rich and powerful elite are able to game the system, our representative government, and buy or influence legislation, author laws and regulations (or remove them) to creates socialism for themselves? When right and wrong are no longer a valid measure of civic action, and replaced instead with lawful and unlawful?

That is what has been happening in America for at least the last 30 years. Wrongs and greed driven actions have become 'lawful', but they are still wrong. Your focus on the attitude of 'entitlement is totally misplaced. You need only look as far as the authors of the recent economic crisis...Wall Street, banks and corporations to find a sense of 'entitlement' that will literally turn your stomach.

The "Great Soul" Mahatma Gandhi said, "There are people in the world so hungry that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread."

Those that believe taking away that bread is all that is needed to fix poverty are not only unethical, they will be LETHAL, to those they pretend to save.

Do not mix the system of government (republic) with the system of commerce (capitalism). Greed is not a force that a republic focuses to good purpose, it simply negates some of its ills with that constitution that governs our rights. Unfortunately, money and greed is bleeding over to our government and that is not a good thing. I would agree that there needs to be change in that aspect and spoke a little to that in another forum. Caps on donations from any single source would be a good start. I would say that your 'last 30 years' and my outlook on entitlement is misplaced as overreaching and wrong. There is an issue with the poor and entitlement and it is keeping many people down. I will get into that in a minute. Wall street and the banks do not have an entitlement problem. They have a legal problem. The politicians in this country not only are influenced by the amount of cash that is flowing to them (a problem as I have stated earlier in this post) but the ones that are against the banks are simply not as intelligent as them. Laws that are written to regulate the banks are circumvented because of the insane legalese that they are written in and the banks with all their resources are smart enough to hire people that can navigate around them. I stand by the fact that GOVERNMENT is the problem here. Separate the two, get the government out of the banking and bailouts and there will not be an issue. This is going into another topic so I will digress for the moment...

Your second point seems to hint that the poor NEED these handouts to survive and I will state that it is flat out wrong. No one is supporting that we take ALL aid from everyone but what is considered poor in this nation is rich for many others. The poor are not hungry unless it is of their own accord. I have seen people get alcohol instead of food with food stamps, buy beer and cigarettes and THEN not have money for food and watched the welfare checks roll in only to be frivolously spent or used on drugs. You do not truly respect what you have unless you had to work for it. I do not mind homeless shelters to feed and shelter the poor but why do you feel that it is necessary to PAY poor people for not accomplishing anything?

Prohibition has been a complete and total FAILURE and it is precisely why you cannot support an entitlement mentality. What you end up creating is a group of individuals that perpetuate in their state because it is easier to continue then it is to break through and in many cases BETTER. There are many instances where working harder would net you LESS than taking the handouts. What would behoove an individual to work harder for less? That is the problem with handouts that have no strings attached. You get a fuzzy feeling inside, they become slaves to the system.

I have a problem when someone says government is the problem. Bad government and corrupt government is a problem. And we need to always be diligent citizenry, but a hands off 'let the invisible hand of the market' approach is ignorance and it reeks of what you and Foxfyre have been dancing with...a culture war and the false belief that wealth equates to morality. The purpose OF government in regards to economics is to write and enforce laws, craft regulations and rules that facilitate commerce and create true free markets where no one can make themselves rich, by making someone else poor. A playing field where you can only lower cost of production or operation by efficient practices, NOT through 'regulatory capture' where profits are increased at the detriment of others by externalizing costs. Better known as corporate welfare.

You claim 'prohibition has been a complete and total FAILURE'. I say you are wrong. When you look at LBJ's War on Poverty, it was a great success. The only thing that stopped or impeded it was a party that espoused the same philosophy as you.

When I refer to the last 30 years, I am talking specifically about the biggest failure in my lifetime and possibly in the history of our nation. The complete and total failure that was called the Reagan revolution. It led us down the road to serfdom We, the People now find ourselves in the smoking ruins of.

It was people that called themselves 'conservatives' who were nothing resembling conservative. They desecrated conservatism by ignoring all the hard earned lessons our ancestors learned. They were ideologues that believed only THEY were smart, and that there exists a class of people that should be entitled. And that entitled class would leave enough bread crumbs for the rest of us... It FAILED and it continues to fail, no matter how many tax cuts we lay at their feet. These ideologues that call themselves 'conservative' threw out or removed all the laws and regulations our ancestors crafted to 'negates some of its ills' as you called it. They too believed that government is the problem. And all we needed to do was remove the hands of government so this entitled class could lead us down the road to Utopia...THEY got their Utopia, but We, the People got serfdom and a middle class that is now a debtor's class.

In regards to human foible you and Foxfyre focus on as some moral barometer, no one should supports laziness or corruption. But we need to exhibit an equal amount of outrage whether it is a poor person OR a rich person. And I would tend to give a lot more leeway to the poor.

 

[Foxfyre]

LBJ's War on Poverty was a 'great success'? Well let's evaluate that:

Thomas Sowell who grew up and was educated solely during segregation, wrote on the 40th anniversary of the 'War on Poverty':

Excerpt

The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society -- and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word "liberal" so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.

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.

In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 -- that is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years afterwards.

WHOLE ARTICLE HERE:
Capitalism Magazine - War on Poverty Revisited

Until enough people actually are willing to set aside partisan blinders and ideological tunnel vision and actually look honestly, objectively, and thoroughly at this stuff, we are just going to keep perpetuating polices that sound real good, but don't produce any honest results or else they produce unintended destructive consequences.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Is there a relationship between income and insight?

Paris Hilton.

For a longer answer, your OP is presupposing that insight implies disaproval of Obama. That's a rather political opinion to say the least and doesn't necessarily follow.

 

[antagon]

how would you suggest that policy be changed?

 

[Bfgrn]

LBJ's War on Poverty was a 'great success'? Well let's evaluate that:

Thomas Sowell who grew up and was educated solely during segregation, wrote on the 40th anniversary of the 'War on Poverty':

Excerpt

The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society -- and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word "liberal" so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.

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.

In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 -- that is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years afterwards.

WHOLE ARTICLE HERE:
Capitalism Magazine - War on Poverty Revisited

Until enough people actually are willing to set aside partisan blinders and ideological tunnel vision and actually look honestly, objectively, and thoroughly at this stuff, we are just going to keep perpetuating polices that sound real good, but don't produce any honest results or else they produce unintended destructive consequences.

Thomas Sowell is not allowed to say anything that isn't pre-approved by the 'group think'. Don't you pay attention to what happens when right wing pundits stray from their script. Ask David Frum...

Besides Sowell is full of shit...

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

One wonders what "War on Poverty money" fueled the changing sexual attitudes of the 1960s. We might have to replace "correlation does not imply causation" with "occurring in the same decade does not imply causation."

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 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and the associated policies ("the War on Poverty") is a very specific document connected with a very specific set of public policies. The least this author could do is actual single out which one he's blaming rather than, again, simply insinuating with supporting his point.

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.

Oh come on. The Moynihan Report bemoaning the "deterioration of the fabric of Negro society [which] is the deterioration of the Negro family" was released in 1965, not long after the War on Poverty was initiated. This issue pre-dates the Johnson administration and the War on Poverty substantially.

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.

The sporadic black militancy and racial unrest of the 1960s was caused by the War on Poverty? "It was the same decade" strikes again! Sexual mores, civil rights...can we credit the War on Poverty with the moon landing, too?

Apologies but that's a ridiculous article whose main value lies in demonstrating how not to think and argue.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

One wonders what "War on Poverty money" fueled the changing sexual attitudes of the 1960s. We might have to replace "correlation does not imply causation" with "occurring in the same decade does not imply causation."

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 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and the associated policies ("the War on Poverty") is a very specific document connected with a very specific set of public policies. The least this author could do is actual single out which one he's blaming rather than, again, simply insinuating with supporting his point.

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.

Oh come on. The Moynihan Report bemoaning the "deterioration of the fabric of Negro society [which] is the deterioration of the Negro family" was released in 1965, not long after the War on Poverty was initiated. This issue pre-dates the Johnson administration and the War on Poverty substantially.

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.

The sporadic black militancy and racial unrest of the 1960s was caused by the War on Poverty? "It was the same decade" strikes again! Sexual mores, civil rights...can we credit the War on Poverty with the moon landing, too?

Apologies but that's a ridiculous article whose main value lies in demonstrating how not to think and argue.

Well you can say its a ridiculous article, but I'll put Thomas Sowell's education, track record, experience, and credentials as a social historian up against yours or anybody else's here on USMB and will expect that it will be no contest as to who is most credible in their perspective and analysis.

There is a subtle difference, however, between stating unequivocably that there is a direct causation as opposed to not giving credit for causing something. If you read the article objectively rather than through partisan blinders and/or ideological tunnel vision, you see that you can take it either way: that the War on Poverty has some implication in the results and/or did nothing. Either way the War on Poverty is not entitled to credit for success that it obviously did not merit.

 

[antagon]

What about in a capitalist country when greed is a negative, destructive force. When a class of rich and powerful elite are able to game the system, our representative government, and buy or influence legislation, author laws and regulations (or remove them) to creates socialism for themselves? When right and wrong are no longer a valid measure of civic action, and replaced instead with lawful and unlawful?

That is what has been happening in America for at least the last 30 years. Wrongs and greed driven actions have become 'lawful', but they are still wrong. Your focus on the attitude of 'entitlement is totally misplaced. You need only look as far as the authors of the recent economic crisis...Wall Street, banks and corporations to find a sense of 'entitlement' that will literally turn your stomach.

The "Great Soul" Mahatma Gandhi said, "There are people in the world so hungry that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread."

Those that believe taking away that bread is all that is needed to fix poverty are not only unethical, they will be LETHAL, to those they pretend to save.

Do not mix the system of government (republic) with the system of commerce (capitalism). Greed is not a force that a republic focuses to good purpose, it simply negates some of its ills with that constitution that governs our rights. Unfortunately, money and greed is bleeding over to our government and that is not a good thing. I would agree that there needs to be change in that aspect and spoke a little to that in another forum. Caps on donations from any single source would be a good start. I would say that your 'last 30 years' and my outlook on entitlement is misplaced as overreaching and wrong. There is an issue with the poor and entitlement and it is keeping many people down. I will get into that in a minute. Wall street and the banks do not have an entitlement problem. They have a legal problem. The politicians in this country not only are influenced by the amount of cash that is flowing to them (a problem as I have stated earlier in this post) but the ones that are against the banks are simply not as intelligent as them. Laws that are written to regulate the banks are circumvented because of the insane legalese that they are written in and the banks with all their resources are smart enough to hire people that can navigate around them. I stand by the fact that GOVERNMENT is the problem here. Separate the two, get the government out of the banking and bailouts and there will not be an issue. This is going into another topic so I will digress for the moment...

this sums up the core of my point. if we separate humanity from the systems we hope to organize humanity with, we still have greed and sloth in the human tradition. these are character traits which will always be represented in a societal cross-section. adding capitalism back in to the mix, we have a system which rewards ambition and freedom. a cheat or a thief who aims to cut corners to obtain these rewards is not a product of capitalism. rather, these individuals continue to represent the unscrupulous hoarders in our unorganized cross-section.

capitalism is the system (social and economic) which has supported human innovation, population growth and the concept of wealth altogether. the idea of removing it from humanity has never succeeded; it is an extension of our humanity in many ways.

adding social policies into solution with humanity and capitalism was thought to improve standards of work and living as a social aim, and to empower the creation of wealth in an economy via commerce as an economic aim. in both aims, the policies of the last 100 years, be it progressive tax, social security, medicaid or welfare, have affected these intended aims. similarly to capitalism and greed, it doesn't take a genius to point out the role that the less motivated folks in the cross-section will take up with a welfare state available.

my point is that the greedy and the lazy are inherent in groups of humans, especially numbering in the hundreds of millions. they are accommodated in ways which our society has found to benefit from in the end. along with these relative handfuls in the broader spread of american demography are the brave, the enterprising, the intelligent, the hard-working, the disabled, the elderly, the less educated and the young... i could fill a page with other ways to describe my fellow americans from what they've got going for them or against them.

the bottom line is that the system which garners criticism for the 'support' of the lazy and the greedy, works well for the rest of us, too. i argue that it works better than the places i've visited in the third world, where they have not mitigatrd the plight or economic participation of their poor. i think it is better off than the countries in the developed world which have adapted different policies and supported capitalism and socialism in different ways than we have here.

 

[antagon]

Well you can say its a ridiculous article, but I'll put Thomas Sowell's education, track record, experience, and credentials as a social historian up against yours or anybody else's here on USMB and will expect that it will be no contest as to who is most credible in their perspective and analysis.

credibility would have to be in the argument for me. it would take God himself to rise above a reproachable argument. i think greenbeard made a number of observations which sowell, or in this case, a supporter of his contentions, would have to rebut to afford real credibility.