Johnson's Great Society

[eflatminor]

You can look it up: from the high twenties to the mid teens in five years.

Tell you what then, since the period of '64 to '69 did in fact see the poverty rate continue it's long term decline, can we go back to the level of entitlement spending during that period? Deal???

There was no long term decline...

The governments official statistics on the rate of poverty prove you wrong. This census.gov website shows poverty on the decline from 1959 until 1969, when the spending on entitlements really took off. Since 1969, the rate of poverty is up. Sorry, you're just wrong.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2011/figure4.pdf

So, I ask again, if you're so enamored with the rate of poverty between the enactment of the GS in 1964 and 1969, are you good with our going back to that level of entitlement spending? If no, why not?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tell you what then, since the period of '64 to '69 did in fact see the poverty rate continue it's long term decline, can we go back to the level of entitlement spending during that period? Deal???

There was no long term decline...

The governments official statistics on the rate of poverty prove you wrong. This census.gov website shows poverty on the decline from 1959 until 1969, when the spending on entitlements really took off. Since 1969, the rate of poverty is up. Sorry, you're just wrong.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2011/figure4.pdf

So, I ask again, if you're so enamored with the rate of poverty between the enactment of the GS in 1964 and 1969, are you good with our going back to that level of entitlement spending? If no, why not?

Reported for slicing and dicing a comment, the whole of which you need to argue. The whole comment is "There was no long term decline, except in poverty for the elderly, and that was because of Social Security." You cannot argue any long term decline or not from 1959. That makes reason stare. Also you are mistaking total numbers for the percentages. Go back and look, please, at your own stats.

 

[eflatminor]

There was no long term decline...

The governments official statistics on the rate of poverty prove you wrong. This census.gov website shows poverty on the decline from 1959 until 1969, when the spending on entitlements really took off. Since 1969, the rate of poverty is up. Sorry, you're just wrong.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2011/figure4.pdf

So, I ask again, if you're so enamored with the rate of poverty between the enactment of the GS in 1964 and 1969, are you good with our going back to that level of entitlement spending? If no, why not?

Reported for slicing and dicing a comment, the whole of which you need to argue. The whole comment is "There was no long term decline, except in poverty for the elderly, and that was because of Social Security." You cannot argue any long term decline or not from 1959. That makes reason stare. Also you are mistaking total numbers for the percentages. Go back and look, please, at your own stats.

Then you lack the ability to read a simple line graph. The poverty rate was 22-23% in 1959, when we began to collect official stats on poverty. By 1964, when we signed GS laws, it was 17%. How is that not a long term decline?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The governments official statistics on the rate of poverty prove you wrong. This census.gov website shows poverty on the decline from 1959 until 1969, when the spending on entitlements really took off. Since 1969, the rate of poverty is up. Sorry, you're just wrong.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2011/figure4.pdf

So, I ask again, if you're so enamored with the rate of poverty between the enactment of the GS in 1964 and 1969, are you good with our going back to that level of entitlement spending? If no, why not?

Reported for slicing and dicing a comment, the whole of which you need to argue. The whole comment is "There was no long term decline, except in poverty for the elderly, and that was because of Social Security." You cannot argue any long term decline or not from 1959. That makes reason stare. Also you are mistaking total numbers for the percentages. Go back and look, please, at your own stats.

Then you lack the ability to read a simple line graph. The poverty rate was 22-23% in 1959, when we began to collect official stats on poverty. By 1964, when we signed GS laws, it was 17%. How is that not a long term decline?

You are floundering. (1) You said long term decline. (2) You have the % wrong. (3) You aren't able to read the graph, are you?

 

[eflatminor]

Reported for slicing and dicing a comment, the whole of which you need to argue. The whole comment is "There was no long term decline, except in poverty for the elderly, and that was because of Social Security." You cannot argue any long term decline or not from 1959. That makes reason stare. Also you are mistaking total numbers for the percentages. Go back and look, please, at your own stats.

Then you lack the ability to read a simple line graph. The poverty rate was 22-23% in 1959, when we began to collect official stats on poverty. By 1964, when we signed GS laws, it was 17%. How is that not a long term decline?

You are floundering. (1) You said long term decline. (2) You have the % wrong. (3) You aren't able to read the graph, are you?

Now you want to argue semantics? "Long term" is only so if YOU say it is?

The decline in poverty from '59 to '69 is clear. We spend almost nothing on entitlements during that period compared to post that period. After '69, poverty is up. You can whine and argue all you like, those are the facts.

Further, if we look at unofficial poverty stats (before government started monitoring it in 1959), we see an even LONGER downward trend in the rate of poverty. In other words, poverty was even higher prior to 1959.

The percentages are NOT wrong as the government's own statistics clearly indicate.

So, again, why not support the level of entitlement spending during that '59 to 69' period? That is when poverty was declining. Afterwards, with vastly higher entitlement spending levels, poverty increased. I realize it just burns your ass to face the reality of how your meddling caused more harm than good. Sucks to face reality I suppose.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The decline in poverty from '59 to '69 is clear. We spend almost nothing on entitlements during that period compared to post that period. After '69, poverty is up.

yes this is so obviously true, only a liberal could not comprehend it. Imagine where our minorities would be today if the 59-69 environment had been allowed to continue!! The Great Society's liberal socialist communism was targeted at blacks and it did to them what it did for the Russians and Chinese.

"We could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism"- Walter Williams Ph.D

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then you lack the ability to read a simple line graph. The poverty rate was 22-23% in 1959, when we began to collect official stats on poverty. By 1964, when we signed GS laws, it was 17%. How is that not a long term decline?

You are floundering. (1) You said long term decline. (2) You have the % wrong. (3) You aren't able to read the graph, are you?

Now you want to argue semantics? "Long term" is only so if YOU say it is?

The decline in poverty from '59 to '69 is clear. We spend almost nothing on entitlements during that period compared to post that period. After '69, poverty is up. You can whine and argue all you like, those are the facts.

Further, if we look at unofficial poverty stats (before government started monitoring it in 1959), we see an even LONGER downward trend in the rate of poverty. In other words, poverty was even higher prior to 1959.

The percentages are NOT wrong as the government's own statistics clearly indicate.

So, again, why not support the level of entitlement spending during that '59 to 69' period? That is when poverty was declining. Afterwards, with vastly higher entitlement spending levels, poverty increased. I realize it just burns your ass to face the reality of how your meddling caused more harm than good. Sucks to face reality I suppose.

Ten years is not "long term", period. No professional would accept it as such. The years of the GS from 65 to 69 were magnificient. However, poverty continued fairly steady after that because of the lagging economy under Nixon, Carter, Ford, and the first part of Reagan's term. Then Reagan deficit spent on defense, Clinton's tax and government policies expanded the economy, the GOP Congress fucked economic policies up from 1994 to 2006, setting conditions for the Great Recession. Poverty climbed again, because of the stupid GOP policies. No way around it.

You need to learn how to read graphs.

 

[eflatminor]

You are floundering. (1) You said long term decline. (2) You have the % wrong. (3) You aren't able to read the graph, are you?

Now you want to argue semantics? "Long term" is only so if YOU say it is?

The decline in poverty from '59 to '69 is clear. We spend almost nothing on entitlements during that period compared to post that period. After '69, poverty is up. You can whine and argue all you like, those are the facts.

Further, if we look at unofficial poverty stats (before government started monitoring it in 1959), we see an even LONGER downward trend in the rate of poverty. In other words, poverty was even higher prior to 1959.

The percentages are NOT wrong as the government's own statistics clearly indicate.

So, again, why not support the level of entitlement spending during that '59 to 69' period? That is when poverty was declining. Afterwards, with vastly higher entitlement spending levels, poverty increased. I realize it just burns your ass to face the reality of how your meddling caused more harm than good. Sucks to face reality I suppose.

Ten years is not "long term", period.

If you say so...

The years of the GS from 65 to 69 were magnificient.

Then let's go back to that level of entitlement spending. Deal?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am glad you see the light and concede, eflatminor.

 

[Bfgrn]

The governments official statistics on the rate of poverty prove you wrong. This census.gov website shows poverty on the decline from 1959 until 1969, when the spending on entitlements really took off. Since 1969, the rate of poverty is up. Sorry, you're just wrong.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2011/figure4.pdf

So, I ask again, if you're so enamored with the rate of poverty between the enactment of the GS in 1964 and 1969, are you good with our going back to that level of entitlement spending? If no, why not?

Reported for slicing and dicing a comment, the whole of which you need to argue. The whole comment is "There was no long term decline, except in poverty for the elderly, and that was because of Social Security." You cannot argue any long term decline or not from 1959. That makes reason stare. Also you are mistaking total numbers for the percentages. Go back and look, please, at your own stats.

Then you lack the ability to read a simple line graph. The poverty rate was 22-23% in 1959, when we began to collect official stats on poverty. By 1964, when we signed GS laws, it was 17%. How is that not a long term decline?

You lack the simple ability to understand that measuring poverty was a journey, not an absolute. It wasn't just throwing a switch and voila, we have numbers. Early figures were raw and less reliable as the definition of poverty and the methods for measuring poverty were being developed for statistical purposes. The major of data is gathered by the US Census, which happens every 10 years, so in 1959, the census data was a decade old. It wasn't until 1965 that the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the SSA thresholds as a working definition of poverty. There is no data available from 1960 to 1966 for those age 65 or older.

Current Measure

During the mid-1960s, Mollie Orshansky, an economist and statistician at the Social Security Administration (SSA), began publishing articles with poverty statistics for the United States, using a poverty measure that she had developed. Like any poverty measure, Orshansky's had two components—a set of poverty lines or income thresholds, and a definition of family income to be compared with those thresholds.

Orshansky developed her poverty thresholds by taking the cost of a minimum adequate diet for families of different sizes and multiplying the cost by three to allow for other expenses. (The minimum diet she used was the Economy Food Plan, the cheapest of four food plans issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The factor of three was derived from a 1955 Agriculture Department survey.) Poor families were those whose yearly income was below the threshold for a family of a given size. She intended that the method be used for research, not to determine eligibility for antipoverty programs.

For the base year 1963, Orshansky's weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four was $3,128. She used the Census Bureau's definition of income—before-tax money income.

In 1965, the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the SSA thresholds as a working definition of poverty for statistical purposes and for program planning. In 1969, the U.S. Bureau of the Budget (now the U.S. Office of Management and Budget) issued a directive that made the thresholds the federal government's official statistical definition of poverty.

In 1967, the Census Bureau began to publish annual poverty statistics calculating the number and percentage of persons in poverty (the poverty population and the poverty rate) by comparing the Orshansky thresholds to families' before-tax money income, using data from the Current Population Survey that is taken every year in March. For these tabulations, the thresholds are updated annually for price changes and so are not changed in real (constant-dollar) terms; in other words, the 2009 weighted average poverty threshold of $21,954 for a family of four represents the same purchasing power as the corresponding 1963 threshold of $3,128.

In 2005, the Census Bureau fully implemented a new survey, the largest household survey in the United States, called the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS collects detailed demographic, socioeconomic, and housing information, like the long-form questionnaire of the Decennial Census, from about 3 million addresses per year.

 

[eflatminor]

I am glad you see the light and concede, eflatminor.

See you're still unable to answer the question. Typical, dodging the facts when they don't support your agenda.

Ah well, in any case, I will happily support the level of entitlement spending we had in the late sixties...seeing how it proved just how well the GS tackled the issue of poverty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am glad you see the light and concede, eflatminor.

See you're still unable to answer the question. Typical, dodging the facts when they don't support your agenda.

Ah well, in any case, I will happily support the level of entitlement spending we had in the late sixties...seeing how it proved just how well the GS tackled the issue of poverty.

Your admission that you can't argue so you attack the messenger: your problem, not mine.

And you were answered once again, in #70 above.

 

[eflatminor]

Reported for slicing and dicing a comment, the whole of which you need to argue. The whole comment is "There was no long term decline, except in poverty for the elderly, and that was because of Social Security." You cannot argue any long term decline or not from 1959. That makes reason stare. Also you are mistaking total numbers for the percentages. Go back and look, please, at your own stats.

Then you lack the ability to read a simple line graph. The poverty rate was 22-23% in 1959, when we began to collect official stats on poverty. By 1964, when we signed GS laws, it was 17%. How is that not a long term decline?

You lack the simple ability to understand that measuring poverty was a journey, not an absolute.

But of course! When the figures don't support your agenda, discount how those figures were collected. Works every time...

"Journey" my ass. You're so full of crap I don't know how you can stand to look in a mirror! Your own government collected stats on poverty, starting in 1959. By every measure used to calculate poverty rates, EVERY ONE, poverty is up since we started spending heavily on entitlements.

Dis-ingenious doesn't begin to capture the level of bullshit you attempt to shovel. Well, that's your cross to bear. Rational people understand that your meddling into poverty made matters worse. That blood in on your hands. Deal with it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

eflatminor, you are cherry picking again. Your argument has failed clearly.

 

[eflatminor]

I am glad you see the light and concede, eflatminor.

See you're still unable to answer the question. Typical, dodging the facts when they don't support your agenda.

Ah well, in any case, I will happily support the level of entitlement spending we had in the late sixties...seeing how it proved just how well the GS tackled the issue of poverty.

Your admission that you can't argue so you attack the messenger: your problem, not mine.

And you were answered once again, in #70 above.

Out of your fucking mind!

NOW I've attacked the messenger...the messenger of complete and utter bullshit.

 

[eflatminor]

eflatminor, you are cherry picking again. Your argument has failed clearly.

Keep telling yourself that. You've offered NOTHING but the claim that falling poverty rates in the first few years after the GS, a time period in which we spent a PITTANCE on entitlements, proves the GS was a success.

That's all you have, while conveniently overlooking the increase in poverty over 45 years that followed, when we spend TRILLIONS on entitlements.

You refuse logic and factual evidence while claiming victory. Typical.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your argumentation has failed, eflatminor, and your denial merely reinforces that denial.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

75% of black children born out of wedlock, education system a mess, etc., etc., etc....

To libs.. a grand slam!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

eflatminor, you are cherry picking again. Your argument has failed clearly.

Keep telling yourself that. You've offered NOTHING but the claim that falling poverty rates in the first few years after the GS, a time period in which we spent a PITTANCE on entitlements, proves the GS was a success.

That's all you have, while conveniently overlooking the increase in poverty over 45 years that followed, when we spend TRILLIONS on entitlements.

You refuse logic and factual evidence while claiming victory. Typical.

Jake the Fake isn't the sharpest tool in the shed....

 

[eflatminor]

Your argumentation has failed, eflatminor, and your denial merely reinforces that denial.

Looks who continues to deny!