Poverty since 1970

OK, I got your, "ain't it awful". Now, what do you recommend should be done about it? And, what might be the consequences in re human suffering, additional costs to families and local government?

Stop the meddling. The poor were better off before all these entitlement programs. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't return to being better off if we phased out those programs. Besides, we simply no longer have the money to continue to roll the dice to see what might work. You've had nearly five decades to experiment. The great society is clearly a failure that's done more harm than good.

I got your opinion. Suggesting the poor were better off before Social Security and Medicare is bullshit. It is not factual, it is not true and it is a lie.

Try to focus. We're talking about poverty rates since 1970, the beginning of the so-called 'great society'. SS and Medicare started before then.
 
1970 is a pretty good point in time to mark the end of US trade surpluses and our shift to an ever-growing trade deficit;

the consequences of that as it has affected and continues to affect domestic job creation is significant.

The trade deficit is what has cause poverty to increase, DESPITE spending trillions on entitlement programs? That seems quite a stretch.

But, let's assume you're right. Do you recommend ending entitlements while tackling the trade deficit? How will you get us back to a trade surplus? Will you prevent goods manufactured overseas? Will a central planner get to decide who trades what with whom?
 
Stop the meddling. The poor were better off before all these entitlement programs. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't return to being better off if we phased out those programs. Besides, we simply no longer have the money to continue to roll the dice to see what might work. You've had nearly five decades to experiment. The great society is clearly a failure that's done more harm than good.

I got your opinion. Suggesting the poor were better off before Social Security and Medicare is bullshit. It is not factual, it is not true and it is a lie.

Try to focus. We're talking about poverty rates since 1970, the beginning of the so-called 'great society'. SS and Medicare started before then.

I need to focus? Who wrote, "The poor were better off before all these entitlement programs"?

Challenged much by cause and effect? What else might have impacted poverty rates since 1970? Off hand, the cost of health care across the nation; the cost of fuel, rent, pubic transportation, food, Jr. College and private training programs.
 
I got your opinion. Suggesting the poor were better off before Social Security and Medicare is bullshit. It is not factual, it is not true and it is a lie.

Try to focus. We're talking about poverty rates since 1970, the beginning of the so-called 'great society'. SS and Medicare started before then.

I need to focus? Who wrote, "The poor were better off before all these entitlement programs"?

Challenged much by cause and effect? What else might have impacted poverty rates since 1970? Off hand, the cost of health care across the nation; the cost of fuel, rent, pubic transportation, food, Jr. College and private training programs.

Look, I know it burns your ass to even think about the possibility that all your meddling in the lives of others, with the best of intentions of course, might have actually caused more harm than good. But the fact remains, after TRILLIONS spent over decades, poverty has increased. You can attempt to claim other factors caused this and poverty would be even worse without all your redistribution, but that lacks logic and reason.

Further, all these costs you list that have increased, what caused the prices of these products and services to increase beyond the overall rate of inflation? The answer is clear - government meddling in those markets, which includes the forced inflation in ALL markets caused by the Federal Reserve. Look at education and healthcare, the two markets in which governments meddle most. It's no coincidence that they have experienced the highest rates of inflation over the last half century, far more than markets the government avoids meddling in.

But I get it, you'll never agree were all better off without the central planning overlords directing the society. Let's just keep at it for another 50 or so years, spend more trillions we don't have and just hope for the best. It's what FEELS right, and isn't that what's really important?
 
Last edited:
BTW, LBJ was POTUS from Nov. 1963 until January 1969; Nixon took office in Jan. 1969 and before he and Ford left office our nation was suffering under stagflation. Read some history whydon'tya.
 
Try to focus. We're talking about poverty rates since 1970, the beginning of the so-called 'great society'. SS and Medicare started before then.

I need to focus? Who wrote, "The poor were better off before all these entitlement programs"?

Challenged much by cause and effect? What else might have impacted poverty rates since 1970? Off hand, the cost of health care across the nation; the cost of fuel, rent, pubic transportation, food, Jr. College and private training programs.

Look, I know it burns your ass to even think about the possibility that all your meddling in the lives of others, with the best of intentions of course, might have actually caused more harm than good. But the fact remains, after TRILLIONS spent over decades, poverty has increased. You can attempt to claim other factors caused this and poverty would be even worse without all your redistribution, but that lacks logic and reason.

Further, all these costs you list that have increased, what caused the prices of these products and services to increase beyond the overall rate of inflation? The answer is clear - government meddling in those markets, which includes the forced inflation in ALL markets caused by the Federal Reserve. Look at education and healthcare, the two markets in which governments meddle most. It's no coincidence that they have experienced the highest rates of inflation over the last half century, far more than markets the government avoids meddling in.

But I get it, you'll never agree were all better off without the central planning overlords directing the society. Let's just keep at it for another 50 or so years, spend more trillions we don't have and just hope for the best. It's what FEELS right, and isn't that what's really important?

LOL, your losing it (the argument) for a very simply reason - that facts are not on your side. You've got the ideology down, best head over to the ministry of truth and get the facts of history changed.
 
BTW, LBJ was POTUS from Nov. 1963 until January 1969; Nixon took office in Jan. 1969 and before he and Ford left office our nation was suffering under stagflation. Read some history whydon'tya.

Nice deflection. I am aware of the Presidents and when they served. This does not change the fact that spending on the so called 'great society' (an LBJ idea) began around 1970 and has only increased exponentially since.

Most people would look at a near half century experiment in which trillions of dollars were spent and expect some progress. Instead, we see poverty has increased. A reasonable response would be to question whether the experiment did more harm than good. A leftist response would be to...well, we've seen your response.

Anyway, thanks for helping me make my point by offering no reasonable explanation for the shitty results central planning has wrought.
 
I need to focus? Who wrote, "The poor were better off before all these entitlement programs"?

Challenged much by cause and effect? What else might have impacted poverty rates since 1970? Off hand, the cost of health care across the nation; the cost of fuel, rent, pubic transportation, food, Jr. College and private training programs.

Look, I know it burns your ass to even think about the possibility that all your meddling in the lives of others, with the best of intentions of course, might have actually caused more harm than good. But the fact remains, after TRILLIONS spent over decades, poverty has increased. You can attempt to claim other factors caused this and poverty would be even worse without all your redistribution, but that lacks logic and reason.

Further, all these costs you list that have increased, what caused the prices of these products and services to increase beyond the overall rate of inflation? The answer is clear - government meddling in those markets, which includes the forced inflation in ALL markets caused by the Federal Reserve. Look at education and healthcare, the two markets in which governments meddle most. It's no coincidence that they have experienced the highest rates of inflation over the last half century, far more than markets the government avoids meddling in.

But I get it, you'll never agree were all better off without the central planning overlords directing the society. Let's just keep at it for another 50 or so years, spend more trillions we don't have and just hope for the best. It's what FEELS right, and isn't that what's really important?

LOL, your losing it (the argument) for a very simply reason - that facts are not on your side. You've got the ideology down, best head over to the ministry of truth and get the facts of history changed.

The fact is poverty is up. The link in the OP to a government website makes that clear. Sucks for you, I know, but those are the facts.
 
1970 is a pretty good point in time to mark the end of US trade surpluses and our shift to an ever-growing trade deficit;

the consequences of that as it has affected and continues to affect domestic job creation is significant.

The trade deficit is what has cause poverty to increase, DESPITE spending trillions on entitlement programs? That seems quite a stretch.

But, let's assume you're right. Do you recommend ending entitlements while tackling the trade deficit? How will you get us back to a trade surplus? Will you prevent goods manufactured overseas? Will a central planner get to decide who trades what with whom?

First of all it's up to you to show that the poverty rate would be lower if there were no help given to the poor.
 
BTW, LBJ was POTUS from Nov. 1963 until January 1969; Nixon took office in Jan. 1969 and before he and Ford left office our nation was suffering under stagflation. Read some history whydon'tya.

Nice deflection. I am aware of the Presidents and when they served. This does not change the fact that spending on the so called 'great society' (an LBJ idea) began around 1970 and has only increased exponentially since.

Everything has increased in cost since 1970; and BTW, I suggest - if you're inclined and not one of the willfully ignorant - you research the Social Security Act Amendments of 1965.

Most people would look at a near half century experiment in which trillions of dollars were spent and expect some progress. Instead, we see poverty has increased. A reasonable response would be to question whether the experiment did more harm than good. A leftist response would be to...well, we've seen your response.

Anyway, thanks for helping me make my point by offering no reasonable explanation for the shitty results central planning has wrought.

You're welcome. I recognize RED SCARE rhetoric when I read it and know better than to take the bait. You're a true believer and historical facts will never change your opinion. That's fine, you're happy and you provide proof that ignorance is bliss.
 
1970 is a pretty good point in time to mark the end of US trade surpluses and our shift to an ever-growing trade deficit;

the consequences of that as it has affected and continues to affect domestic job creation is significant.

The trade deficit is what has cause poverty to increase, DESPITE spending trillions on entitlement programs? That seems quite a stretch.

But, let's assume you're right. Do you recommend ending entitlements while tackling the trade deficit? How will you get us back to a trade surplus? Will you prevent goods manufactured overseas? Will a central planner get to decide who trades what with whom?

First of all it's up to you to show that the poverty rate would be lower if there were no help given to the poor.

He would also need to prove or provide evidence that the cost to local government would not have increased and taxes paid to state and local government wouldn't have increased as well as dozens of dependent and independent variables would not have impacted the poor, the middle class and even the 1% negatively. Factors which he cannot do even if he thought of them, which I pretty certain he has not.
 
BTW, LBJ was POTUS from Nov. 1963 until January 1969; Nixon took office in Jan. 1969 and before he and Ford left office our nation was suffering under stagflation. Read some history whydon'tya.

Nice deflection. I am aware of the Presidents and when they served. This does not change the fact that spending on the so called 'great society' (an LBJ idea) began around 1970 and has only increased exponentially since.

Everything has increased in cost since 1970; and BTW, I suggest - if you're inclined and not one of the willfully ignorant - you research the Social Security Act Amendments of 1965.

Most people would look at a near half century experiment in which trillions of dollars were spent and expect some progress. Instead, we see poverty has increased. A reasonable response would be to question whether the experiment did more harm than good. A leftist response would be to...well, we've seen your response.

Anyway, thanks for helping me make my point by offering no reasonable explanation for the shitty results central planning has wrought.

You're welcome. I recognize RED SCARE rhetoric when I read it and know better than to take the bait. You're a true believer and historical facts will never change your opinion. That's fine, you're happy and you provide proof that ignorance is bliss.

Got it. We needed to spend all these trillions of dollars in thousands of entitlement programs, money we don't have...to help the poor keep up with inflation.

What's even more sad is that you failed even that regard. The poor have not kept up with inflation. That's just sad.

Bottom line, you got your great society spending, programs and redistribution. Your number one goal was to eliminate poverty, yet it got worse. You failed. Deal with it.
 
1970 is a pretty good point in time to mark the end of US trade surpluses and our shift to an ever-growing trade deficit;

the consequences of that as it has affected and continues to affect domestic job creation is significant.

The trade deficit is what has cause poverty to increase, DESPITE spending trillions on entitlement programs? That seems quite a stretch.

But, let's assume you're right. Do you recommend ending entitlements while tackling the trade deficit? How will you get us back to a trade surplus? Will you prevent goods manufactured overseas? Will a central planner get to decide who trades what with whom?

First of all it's up to you to show that the poverty rate would be lower if there were no help given to the poor.

No, government records prove the poverty rate WAS lower before most of these bullshit programs the great society gave us. You wasted trillions of dollars while putting generations under the thumb of the government dole, all while helping to bankrupt the nation.
 
The trade deficit is what has cause poverty to increase, DESPITE spending trillions on entitlement programs? That seems quite a stretch.

But, let's assume you're right. Do you recommend ending entitlements while tackling the trade deficit? How will you get us back to a trade surplus? Will you prevent goods manufactured overseas? Will a central planner get to decide who trades what with whom?

First of all it's up to you to show that the poverty rate would be lower if there were no help given to the poor.

He would also need to prove or provide evidence that the cost to local government would not have increased and taxes paid to state and local government wouldn't have increased as well as dozens of dependent and independent variables would not have impacted the poor, the middle class and even the 1% negatively. Factors which he cannot do even if he thought of them, which I pretty certain he has not.

Actually, I need not prove "cost to local government would not have increased". It's not as though there were massive state and local entitlement programs aimed at ending poverty before the start of the great society. Charity (aka, voluntary) at the local level was still the method by which the truly destitute received assistance. And yet, there was less poverty.

Logic and reason prevail here. Before the entitlements, federal or local, we had poor people. We spent trillions to end poverty and the problem got worse. Clearly, logic suggest we go with that which worked better. The fact we're in $16 trillion of debt and rising fast will only make that argument a fiscal reality whether you like it or not.
 
Nice deflection. I am aware of the Presidents and when they served. This does not change the fact that spending on the so called 'great society' (an LBJ idea) began around 1970 and has only increased exponentially since.

Everything has increased in cost since 1970; and BTW, I suggest - if you're inclined and not one of the willfully ignorant - you research the Social Security Act Amendments of 1965.

Most people would look at a near half century experiment in which trillions of dollars were spent and expect some progress. Instead, we see poverty has increased. A reasonable response would be to question whether the experiment did more harm than good. A leftist response would be to...well, we've seen your response.

Anyway, thanks for helping me make my point by offering no reasonable explanation for the shitty results central planning has wrought.

You're welcome. I recognize RED SCARE rhetoric when I read it and know better than to take the bait. You're a true believer and historical facts will never change your opinion. That's fine, you're happy and you provide proof that ignorance is bliss.

Got it. We needed to spend all these trillions of dollars in thousands of entitlement programs, money we don't have...to help the poor keep up with inflation.

What's even more sad is that you failed even that regard. The poor have not kept up with inflation. That's just sad.

Bottom line, you got your great society spending, programs and redistribution. Your number one goal was to eliminate poverty, yet it got worse. You failed. Deal with it.

Poverty exists. I'm sure that makes many on your side of the aisle happy for business can hire the deperate cheaply, and the stockholders and management can have greater income exploiting them.

Your side also opposed abortion, a means to make sure a large supply of cheap labor will always exist. Of course the wealthy will always be able to travel and secure a safe abortion unavailable to the poor and working poor. And the poor and working poor will not be able to afford private schools even with vochers, so this fits well into the future plutocrats hope for America.

Of course that's not all, the right must break unions for working men and women earning good wages and benefits will be able to provide for their kids, and with good health and a good education there will be a few less or our citizens to exploit. But worse for the plutocrats some of the kids of the working poor and of the shrinking middle class will attend universities and learn how their family and neighbors have been exploited. And those damn liberal professors will introduce them to ideas anathema to the leisure class and we all know where that will lead, and has lead.

The irony being the greastest fear of the plutocrats is for a popular uprisiing, and everything they do and advocate leads directly to the same conclusion:

George Santayana - Wikiquote

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
 
You're welcome. I recognize RED SCARE rhetoric when I read it and know better than to take the bait. You're a true believer and historical facts will never change your opinion. That's fine, you're happy and you provide proof that ignorance is bliss.

Got it. We needed to spend all these trillions of dollars in thousands of entitlement programs, money we don't have...to help the poor keep up with inflation.

What's even more sad is that you failed even that regard. The poor have not kept up with inflation. That's just sad.

Bottom line, you got your great society spending, programs and redistribution. Your number one goal was to eliminate poverty, yet it got worse. You failed. Deal with it.

Poverty exists. I'm sure that makes many on your side of the aisle happy for business can hire the deperate cheaply, and the stockholders and management can have greater income exploiting them.

All that exploiting has resulted such wealth that even our poor are considered rich, which makes our middle class downright opulent. Good for us.

Your side also opposed abortion...

Red herring. Libertarians do not take a uniform stance on the issue. My personal opinion is of no importance to the point at hand.

Of course that's not all, the right must break unions

Nope. I have no problem with private sector unions. Public sector, that's a different deal. I stand against public sector unions, as did FDR himself. Those in the private sector have increasingly rejected the idea of unionization. Their choice, not yours.

Again, this has nothing to do with the entitlement spending of the great society and the abject failure it has been.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.[

Indeed. Now look to all the central planners throughout history. All eventually ended up pretty badly for the common guy. One shining exception was the American experiment, where more poor became middle class and more middle class became rich than any time in history. Yet, you want to return to more central planning...because you know what's best for everyone else so somebody else should fund your programs. History teaches us that no matter how pure you think your motives to be, no central planning can give us the benefits of free people making voluntary choices. You fuck with that proven success at our peril...as the last half century has proven.
 

Forum List

Back
Top