Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
ten's of thousand American's benefit from the New Deal.
Gee, I think it's best to let the narcissist wait.
Wait???
For you??
If I had a dollar for each time I thought about you....I'd start thinking about you.
Ouch, that truly hurts. Let me help, my friends called me "Burt", not for Burt and Ernie, but because I looked like Burt Lancaster. Others nicknamed me Herc, as I'm 6'2" tall and a sleek 225 pounds. My shoulders will support half a dozen conservatives, well, not six fatties, but the usual skinny short and sissified ones. Don't worry, I have an image of you too and it is not one of any guys' dreams - unless of course the guy is subject to nightmares.
Have you noticed that ‘awesome’ ends with ‘me,’ and ‘ugly’ begins with ‘u.’
No, I never noticed, though I'm certain that idiom isn't something you created, rather another effort to establish some cred. by using the words of others. That's sad, and why I pity you.
Since you do stalk me, at least my posts, you're aware (mmm, if you are capable) that I've coined the phrase, 'Willful Ignorance"; a phrase which has made it onto the USMB domain by those on the right and those on the correct side of critical thought. Funny, ain't it, you only get praise from the echo chamber. Well, not funny, predictable. Are you proud to receive 'thanks' from the dumbest among us?
Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
January 13, 2014
Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait
President Lyndon Johnson’s visit to Tom Fletcher’s home in Kentucky was part of his tour of poverty stricken areas in the U.S. (Photo by Walter Bennett/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images).
Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to urge “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” The War on Poverty, as the set of social programs enacted in 1964-1965 came to be called, was arguably the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the Great Depression. But for decades, politicians and social scientists have argued about whether Johnson’s antipoverty programs have lifted people out of destitution, trapped them in cycles of dependency, or both.
Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.
What’s inarguable, though, is that the demographics of America’s poor have shifted over the decades. Here’s a look at what has, and hasn’t, changed, based on the official measure. (Note: The reference years vary depending on data availability.)
Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.
Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.
But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.
Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.
Poverty is more evenly distributed, though still heaviest in the South: In 1969, 45.9% of poor Americans lived in the South, a region that accounted for 31% of the U.S. population at the time. At 17.9%, the South’s poverty rate was far above other regions. In 2012, the South was home to 37.3% of all Americans and 41.1% of the nation’s poor people; though the South’s poverty rate, 16.5%, was the highest among the four Census-designated regions, it was only 3.2 percentage points above the lowest (the Midwest).
Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).
But poverty has risen among Hispanics. Poverty data for Hispanics, who can be of any race, wasn’t collected until 1972. That year, 22.8% lived below the poverty threshold. In 2012, the share of Hispanics in poverty had risen to 25.6%. But the U.S. Hispanic population has quintupled over that time. As a result, more than half of the 22 million-person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
AGAIN, you didn't even read it...
AGAIN, you didn't understand it: half a century, $22 trillion, and still the same level of poverty.
What kind of dope doesn't understand that as failure?
Raise your paw.
An yet, all you offer is "ain't it awful". Fuck those who try to make our short time on this earth easier, safer, more healthful; the ideology consistent with the callous conservative GOP's mantra, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you".
Well fuck you; not that I would, I have principles.
Who is "we"?What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?
If you think the war is lost then you must believe that the war must end.
Therefore you must believe that Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, EIC, fuel and energy assistance, educational assistance, and all other programs that effectively represent the war on poverty should be ceased.
After that is done, how long before we win the war on poverty, using your plan of no programs for the poor?
Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
January 13, 2014
Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait
President Lyndon Johnson’s visit to Tom Fletcher’s home in Kentucky was part of his tour of poverty stricken areas in the U.S. (Photo by Walter Bennett/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images).
Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to urge “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” The War on Poverty, as the set of social programs enacted in 1964-1965 came to be called, was arguably the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the Great Depression. But for decades, politicians and social scientists have argued about whether Johnson’s antipoverty programs have lifted people out of destitution, trapped them in cycles of dependency, or both.
Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.
What’s inarguable, though, is that the demographics of America’s poor have shifted over the decades. Here’s a look at what has, and hasn’t, changed, based on the official measure. (Note: The reference years vary depending on data availability.)
Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.
Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.
But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.
Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.
Poverty is more evenly distributed, though still heaviest in the South: In 1969, 45.9% of poor Americans lived in the South, a region that accounted for 31% of the U.S. population at the time. At 17.9%, the South’s poverty rate was far above other regions. In 2012, the South was home to 37.3% of all Americans and 41.1% of the nation’s poor people; though the South’s poverty rate, 16.5%, was the highest among the four Census-designated regions, it was only 3.2 percentage points above the lowest (the Midwest).
Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).
But poverty has risen among Hispanics. Poverty data for Hispanics, who can be of any race, wasn’t collected until 1972. That year, 22.8% lived below the poverty threshold. In 2012, the share of Hispanics in poverty had risen to 25.6%. But the U.S. Hispanic population has quintupled over that time. As a result, more than half of the 22 million-person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
AGAIN, you didn't even read it...
AGAIN, you didn't understand it: half a century, $22 trillion, and still the same level of poverty.
What kind of dope doesn't understand that as failure?
Raise your paw.
An yet, all you offer is "ain't it awful". Fuck those who try to make our short time on this earth easier, safer, more healthful; the ideology consistent with the callous conservative GOP's mantra, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you".
Well fuck you; not that I would, I have principles.
You're not speaking to your family.
Watch your language.
Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
January 13, 2014
Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait
President Lyndon Johnson’s visit to Tom Fletcher’s home in Kentucky was part of his tour of poverty stricken areas in the U.S. (Photo by Walter Bennett/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images).
Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to urge “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” The War on Poverty, as the set of social programs enacted in 1964-1965 came to be called, was arguably the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the Great Depression. But for decades, politicians and social scientists have argued about whether Johnson’s antipoverty programs have lifted people out of destitution, trapped them in cycles of dependency, or both.
Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.
What’s inarguable, though, is that the demographics of America’s poor have shifted over the decades. Here’s a look at what has, and hasn’t, changed, based on the official measure. (Note: The reference years vary depending on data availability.)
Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.
Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.
But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.
Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.
Poverty is more evenly distributed, though still heaviest in the South: In 1969, 45.9% of poor Americans lived in the South, a region that accounted for 31% of the U.S. population at the time. At 17.9%, the South’s poverty rate was far above other regions. In 2012, the South was home to 37.3% of all Americans and 41.1% of the nation’s poor people; though the South’s poverty rate, 16.5%, was the highest among the four Census-designated regions, it was only 3.2 percentage points above the lowest (the Midwest).
Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).
But poverty has risen among Hispanics. Poverty data for Hispanics, who can be of any race, wasn’t collected until 1972. That year, 22.8% lived below the poverty threshold. In 2012, the share of Hispanics in poverty had risen to 25.6%. But the U.S. Hispanic population has quintupled over that time. As a result, more than half of the 22 million-person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
FDR was NOT responsible for CAUSING the Great Depression , his party was. But FDR is responsible for PROLONGING the great depression.$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
AGAIN, you didn't even read it...
AGAIN, you didn't understand it: half a century, $22 trillion, and still the same level of poverty.
What kind of dope doesn't understand that as failure?
Raise your paw.
An yet, all you offer is "ain't it awful". Fuck those who try to make our short time on this earth easier, safer, more healthful; the ideology consistent with the callous conservative GOP's mantra, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you".
Well fuck you; not that I would, I have principles.
You're not speaking to your family.
Watch your language.
I respect my family, you I don't. And making even vague references to one's family is bad form, not that you've ever been accused of having good form.
I see one of your followers believes FDR is responsible for the Great Depression and World War II. It must warm your cold heart when the Ministry of Truth creates another convert, sense the only way for your side to win is to lie, cheat and dumb down the voter.
Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
January 13, 2014
Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait
President Lyndon Johnson’s visit to Tom Fletcher’s home in Kentucky was part of his tour of poverty stricken areas in the U.S. (Photo by Walter Bennett/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images).
Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to urge “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” The War on Poverty, as the set of social programs enacted in 1964-1965 came to be called, was arguably the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the Great Depression. But for decades, politicians and social scientists have argued about whether Johnson’s antipoverty programs have lifted people out of destitution, trapped them in cycles of dependency, or both.
Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.
What’s inarguable, though, is that the demographics of America’s poor have shifted over the decades. Here’s a look at what has, and hasn’t, changed, based on the official measure. (Note: The reference years vary depending on data availability.)
Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.
Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.
But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.
Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.
Poverty is more evenly distributed, though still heaviest in the South: In 1969, 45.9% of poor Americans lived in the South, a region that accounted for 31% of the U.S. population at the time. At 17.9%, the South’s poverty rate was far above other regions. In 2012, the South was home to 37.3% of all Americans and 41.1% of the nation’s poor people; though the South’s poverty rate, 16.5%, was the highest among the four Census-designated regions, it was only 3.2 percentage points above the lowest (the Midwest).
Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).
But poverty has risen among Hispanics. Poverty data for Hispanics, who can be of any race, wasn’t collected until 1972. That year, 22.8% lived below the poverty threshold. In 2012, the share of Hispanics in poverty had risen to 25.6%. But the U.S. Hispanic population has quintupled over that time. As a result, more than half of the 22 million-person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.
FDR was NOT responsible for CAUSING the Great Depression , his party was. But FDR is responsible for PROLONGING the great depression.AGAIN, you didn't even read it...
AGAIN, you didn't understand it: half a century, $22 trillion, and still the same level of poverty.
What kind of dope doesn't understand that as failure?
Raise your paw.
An yet, all you offer is "ain't it awful". Fuck those who try to make our short time on this earth easier, safer, more healthful; the ideology consistent with the callous conservative GOP's mantra, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you".
Well fuck you; not that I would, I have principles.
You're not speaking to your family.
Watch your language.
I respect my family, you I don't. And making even vague references to one's family is bad form, not that you've ever been accused of having good form.
I see one of your followers believes FDR is responsible for the Great Depression and World War II. It must warm your cold heart when the Ministry of Truth creates another convert, sense the only way for your side to win is to lie, cheat and dumb down the voter.
.
Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
January 13, 2014
Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait
President Lyndon Johnson’s visit to Tom Fletcher’s home in Kentucky was part of his tour of poverty stricken areas in the U.S. (Photo by Walter Bennett/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images).
Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to urge “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” The War on Poverty, as the set of social programs enacted in 1964-1965 came to be called, was arguably the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the Great Depression. But for decades, politicians and social scientists have argued about whether Johnson’s antipoverty programs have lifted people out of destitution, trapped them in cycles of dependency, or both.
Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.
What’s inarguable, though, is that the demographics of America’s poor have shifted over the decades. Here’s a look at what has, and hasn’t, changed, based on the official measure. (Note: The reference years vary depending on data availability.)
Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.
Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.
But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.
Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.
Poverty is more evenly distributed, though still heaviest in the South: In 1969, 45.9% of poor Americans lived in the South, a region that accounted for 31% of the U.S. population at the time. At 17.9%, the South’s poverty rate was far above other regions. In 2012, the South was home to 37.3% of all Americans and 41.1% of the nation’s poor people; though the South’s poverty rate, 16.5%, was the highest among the four Census-designated regions, it was only 3.2 percentage points above the lowest (the Midwest).
Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).
But poverty has risen among Hispanics. Poverty data for Hispanics, who can be of any race, wasn’t collected until 1972. That year, 22.8% lived below the poverty threshold. In 2012, the share of Hispanics in poverty had risen to 25.6%. But the U.S. Hispanic population has quintupled over that time. As a result, more than half of the 22 million-person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.
"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America
Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.
Economically, all the people being paid to do "public works projects" were paid from the same source as people who got welfare, the money came out of the economy, the economy that was in depression. While I personally applaud people who would rather work than get something for free, they were still just as big a drag on the economy.
Are you really that stupid!!! Yes, I suppose you are. Bridges were built, electricity was brought to rural America and ten's of thousand American's benefit from the New Deal. You and the rest of the assholes on the far right will never succeed in rewriting history, too many of us graduated from high school and four year colleges and universities to be fooled by jerks, assholes and morons like you.
AGAIN, you didn't even read it...
AGAIN, you didn't understand it: half a century, $22 trillion, and still the same level of poverty.
What kind of dope doesn't understand that as failure?
Raise your paw.
An yet, all you offer is "ain't it awful". Fuck those who try to make our short time on this earth easier, safer, more healthful; the ideology consistent with the callous conservative GOP's mantra, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you".
Well fuck you; not that I would, I have principles.
You're not speaking to your family.
Watch your language.
I respect my family, you I don't. And making even vague references to one's family is bad form, not that you've ever been accused of having good form.
I see one of your followers believes FDR is responsible for the Great Depression and World War II. It must warm your cold heart when the Ministry of Truth creates another convert, sense the only way for your side to win is to lie, cheat and dumb down the voter.
FDR was NOT responsible for CAUSING the Great Depression , his party was. But FDR is responsible for PROLONGING the great depression.
.
Economically, all the people being paid to do "public works projects" were paid from the same source as people who got welfare, the money came out of the economy, the economy that was in depression. While I personally applaud people who would rather work than get something for free, they were still just as big a drag on the economy.
Are you really that stupid!!! Yes, I suppose you are. Bridges were built, electricity was brought to rural America and ten's of thousand American's benefit from the New Deal. You and the rest of the assholes on the far right will never succeed in rewriting history, too many of us graduated from high school and four year colleges and universities to be fooled by jerks, assholes and morons like you.
You don't understand what I said. I did not say that nothing they did was worthwhile. If you spend $100 on a lamp, that may very well have been a worthwhile expenditure. That doesn't mean you don't have $100 less in your pocket. I said those projects were not going to revive the economy. Whether they were good or bad things for government to do is irrelevant to my point. That you don't understand that makes it hilarious you ask if I am that stupid.
Liberals so fundamentally don't understand economics. Your economy grows because private companies create value. As evil as it is, that value is called "profit." Makes you shudder, doesn't it Karl? Spending money on infrastructure is necessary, but it doesn't create economic value. FDR did not lessen the depression by that spending. That is what I said. And the data shows it. WWII ended the depression.
Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
January 13, 2014
Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait
President Lyndon Johnson’s visit to Tom Fletcher’s home in Kentucky was part of his tour of poverty stricken areas in the U.S. (Photo by Walter Bennett/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images).
Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to urge “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” The War on Poverty, as the set of social programs enacted in 1964-1965 came to be called, was arguably the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the Great Depression. But for decades, politicians and social scientists have argued about whether Johnson’s antipoverty programs have lifted people out of destitution, trapped them in cycles of dependency, or both.
Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.
What’s inarguable, though, is that the demographics of America’s poor have shifted over the decades. Here’s a look at what has, and hasn’t, changed, based on the official measure. (Note: The reference years vary depending on data availability.)
Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.
Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.
But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.
Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.
Poverty is more evenly distributed, though still heaviest in the South: In 1969, 45.9% of poor Americans lived in the South, a region that accounted for 31% of the U.S. population at the time. At 17.9%, the South’s poverty rate was far above other regions. In 2012, the South was home to 37.3% of all Americans and 41.1% of the nation’s poor people; though the South’s poverty rate, 16.5%, was the highest among the four Census-designated regions, it was only 3.2 percentage points above the lowest (the Midwest).
Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).
But poverty has risen among Hispanics. Poverty data for Hispanics, who can be of any race, wasn’t collected until 1972. That year, 22.8% lived below the poverty threshold. In 2012, the share of Hispanics in poverty had risen to 25.6%. But the U.S. Hispanic population has quintupled over that time. As a result, more than half of the 22 million-person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.
"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America
Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.
So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..
I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.
As for anyone knowing economics, it seems the experts (and surely not the amateurs) have different ideas on what works and what don't. So don't pretend to be anything more than a parrot, at least until you write a book and win a noble prize.
As for anyone knowing economics, it seems the experts (and surely not the amateurs) have different ideas on what works and what don't. So don't pretend to be anything more than a parrot, at least until you write a book and win a noble prize.
I call you Karl for your Marxist rhetoric and adherence to the planks of the Manifesto, pretty straight forward. As for economics, again, the lawyers you parrot went to LAW school. Stop listening to them, they are lying to you. They say whatever will get you to give them the ubiquitous power of government guns.
And still, you don't even understand the simple concept in my post. Spending money without creating economic value harms the economy. You didn't get the lamp analogy, again.
If you invest money in a profitable investment, like a CD, you get a return, that grows your wealth.
If you invest money in buying a lamp, you get light. You may need it, but it doesn't grow your wealth.
Government does not create value, it destroys it. Whether or not you want what they do or not, you are not going to grow the economy through government spending.
The poor are a Hell of a lot fatter, and have better shoes and tattoos than they did before the War on Poverty.What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?
It misdirects assets, takes what is earned and gives it away in exchange for votes, and has no interest in actually solving societal problems.
Are voters so stupid that they are willing to overlook the black hole of abysmal waste that the welfare state has become?
1. "Today, [September 16, 2014 ] the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50thanniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty.
Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.
2. ... taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.
3. ... government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)
4. .... about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.
5. .... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
6. [The scam:] Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state."
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop
How much more clearly does the public need to be shown that Liberalism is a failure?
The poor are a Hell of a lot fatter, and have better shoes and tattoos than they did before the War on Poverty.What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?
It misdirects assets, takes what is earned and gives it away in exchange for votes, and has no interest in actually solving societal problems.
Are voters so stupid that they are willing to overlook the black hole of abysmal waste that the welfare state has become?
1. "Today, [September 16, 2014 ] the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50thanniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty.
Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.
2. ... taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.
3. ... government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)
4. .... about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.
5. .... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
6. [The scam:] Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state."
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop
How much more clearly does the public need to be shown that Liberalism is a failure?
Isn't "progress" wonderful.
How am I forgetting that?...and that's exactly why people want to regulate the economy. You're forgetting how people work to live. They don't work to work.
That's just stupid, you don't know what a Marxist is.If anyone's a Marxist, it's you for basically advocating a dictatorship of the working class. Merely working for a lot of money doesn't make you profitable. It's the conversion of money to real life experience that makes you profitable.
What does that have to do with anything?Which would you rather be - a moderately rich person who lives a fulfilling life, or a very rich person who lives a miserly life?
Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
January 13, 2014
Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait
President Lyndon Johnson’s visit to Tom Fletcher’s home in Kentucky was part of his tour of poverty stricken areas in the U.S. (Photo by Walter Bennett/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images).
Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson used his first State of the Union address to urge “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States.” The War on Poverty, as the set of social programs enacted in 1964-1965 came to be called, was arguably the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the Great Depression. But for decades, politicians and social scientists have argued about whether Johnson’s antipoverty programs have lifted people out of destitution, trapped them in cycles of dependency, or both.
Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.
What’s inarguable, though, is that the demographics of America’s poor have shifted over the decades. Here’s a look at what has, and hasn’t, changed, based on the official measure. (Note: The reference years vary depending on data availability.)
Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.
Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.
But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.
Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.
Poverty is more evenly distributed, though still heaviest in the South: In 1969, 45.9% of poor Americans lived in the South, a region that accounted for 31% of the U.S. population at the time. At 17.9%, the South’s poverty rate was far above other regions. In 2012, the South was home to 37.3% of all Americans and 41.1% of the nation’s poor people; though the South’s poverty rate, 16.5%, was the highest among the four Census-designated regions, it was only 3.2 percentage points above the lowest (the Midwest).
Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).
But poverty has risen among Hispanics. Poverty data for Hispanics, who can be of any race, wasn’t collected until 1972. That year, 22.8% lived below the poverty threshold. In 2012, the share of Hispanics in poverty had risen to 25.6%. But the U.S. Hispanic population has quintupled over that time. As a result, more than half of the 22 million-person increase in official poverty between 1972 and 2012 was among Hispanics.
$22 Trillion later...
... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....
As I said....the War On Poverty, Lost
You keep making a claim of $22 trillion spent...show me the math? It is a reasonable request. Nowhere in Robert Rector's "study" does he show the math or methodology. The man has been caught lying many times.
"Since that time[January, 1964], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America
Now admit it's been an abysmal failure.
So, you admit you have nothing. A total whiff..
I am absolutely SURE it is a lot of lies and bogus fudging of numbers. Robert Rector is a slime ball habitual liar.
The boomerang statement of the day:
"a slime ball habitual liar."
