Our Sixty Year War on Poverty

[longknife]

Lots of graphics but the bottom line seems to be to be that we've wasted trillions of dollars in an effort to socialize America. And the results don't seem to be all that great.


Also noticed - 1950 to 2010 = FIFTY years?


Read more @ 50 Years of US Poverty 1960 to 2010 Newgeography.com

 

[alanbmx123]

think the importation of the south of the border poor had anything to do with it??? does not take a study to figure it out! And all the social programs that give them just enough for cigarettes and booze and cable TV.

 

[Cassandro]

In 1965 the Food Stamp program was created to help an estimated 300,000 needy persons. Ten years later, it was being used by 30,000,000 people. Now it is 50,000,000 people. Socialism brings people down to the lowest common denominator. Some people consider that "social justice."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Things would be much worse without the War on Poverty, based on how much the economic fortunes of this country have declined in the last 50 years.

 

[Roadrunner]

Things would be much worse without the War on Poverty, based on how much the economic fortunes of this country have declined in the last 50 years.

That may be the stupidest thing I ever read.

No sane person could believe that.

 

[g5000]

Every once in a while, longknife and PoliticalChic like to start topics that the War on Poverty™ has been ineffective. It does not matter to them they have been proven wrong about that before.

So here we go again.

Who's poor in America? 50 years into the 'War on Poverty', a data portrait | Pew Research Center

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.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were.

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Medicare2000.pdf

. In 1964, nearly half of all seniors were
uninsured, making the elderly among the least likely Americans
to have health insurance. Today, with 97 percent of seniors
covered by Medicare, the elderly are the most likely to have
insurance.

More bad news for you, longknife, from the same link I posted above:

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).

Ain't that a *****?

 

[Staidhup]

The failure attributed to social programs has been well documented through out the developed world, especially within the US, however the reluctance toward adopting change is politically indefeasible. The media and left are comfortable with the status quo. The fact that the European Socialist model holds such prominence within academia it would require a major overhaul precipitated by a collapse of the economy.

 

[OKTexas]

Things would be much worse without the War on Poverty, based on how much the economic fortunes of this country have declined in the last 50 years.

You have no way of proving that, when you make people comfortable in poverty there is no sense of urgency to get out, it becomes a lifestyle. Most of our poor live much better than the middle class in many countries.

 

[g5000]

Now you can spend the next 50 pages pretending you didn't see my previous post.

 

[martybegan]

Things would be much worse without the War on Poverty, based on how much the economic fortunes of this country have declined in the last 50 years.

Maybe they might have actually tried to better themselves instead of expecting government handouts. The ******* horror.....

What the war on poverty forgot was that people may need to be shamed out of working their way out of poor life choices (theirs or their parents). There is nothing wrong with helping people, however we removed the stigma of not being able to care for yourself or your family. Couple that with the basic human fact that if you pay someone for something, you get more of it, we created a system that doesn't create the incentive to get out of the system, it creates an incentive to stay in it, both for those in it, and those running it.

 

[martybegan]

Every once in a while, longknife and PoliticalChic like to start topics that the War on Poverty™ has been ineffective. It does not matter to them they have been proven wrong about that before.

So here we go again.

Who's poor in America? 50 years into the 'War on Poverty', a data portrait | Pew Research Center

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.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were.

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Medicare2000.pdf

. In 1964, nearly half of all seniors were
uninsured, making the elderly among the least likely Americans
to have health insurance. Today, with 97 percent of seniors
covered by Medicare, the elderly are the most likely to have
insurance.

More bad news for you, longknife, from the same link I posted above:

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).

Ain't that a *****?

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[williepete]

"The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people."
--Noam Chomsky

 

[g5000]

Every once in a while, longknife and PoliticalChic like to start topics that the War on Poverty™ has been ineffective. It does not matter to them they have been proven wrong about that before.

So here we go again.

Who's poor in America? 50 years into the 'War on Poverty', a data portrait | Pew Research Center

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.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were.

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Medicare2000.pdf

. In 1964, nearly half of all seniors were
uninsured, making the elderly among the least likely Americans
to have health insurance. Today, with 97 percent of seniors
covered by Medicare, the elderly are the most likely to have
insurance.

More bad news for you, longknife, from the same link I posted above:

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).

Ain't that a *****?

Correlation does not equal causation.

Look at the retard misusing a scientific phrase!

How...cute.

When you toss that shit out there, you have to explain where I went wrong. So please start by explaining how providing Medicare to all seniors is not the cause of 97 percent of seniors now having insurance.

Dumbass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Things would be much worse without the War on Poverty, based on how much the economic fortunes of this country have declined in the last 50 years.

Maybe they might have actually tried to better themselves instead of expecting government handouts. The ******* horror.....

What the war on poverty forgot was that people may need to be shamed out of working their way out of poor life choices (theirs or their parents). There is nothing wrong with helping people, however we removed the stigma of not being able to care for yourself or your family. Couple that with the basic human fact that if you pay someone for something, you get more of it, we created a system that doesn't create the incentive to get out of the system, it creates an incentive to stay in it, both for those in it, and those running it.

So we'd be better off if none of the millions who've received Medicaid in the last 50 years had never gotten a nickel's worth of healthcare assistance.

Prove it.

 

[martybegan]

Every once in a while, longknife and PoliticalChic like to start topics that the War on Poverty™ has been ineffective. It does not matter to them they have been proven wrong about that before.

So here we go again.

Who's poor in America? 50 years into the 'War on Poverty', a data portrait | Pew Research Center

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.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were.

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Medicare2000.pdf

. In 1964, nearly half of all seniors were
uninsured, making the elderly among the least likely Americans
to have health insurance. Today, with 97 percent of seniors
covered by Medicare, the elderly are the most likely to have
insurance.

More bad news for you, longknife, from the same link I posted above:

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).

Ain't that a *****?

Correlation does not equal causation.

Look at the retard misusing a scientific phrase!

How...cute.

When you toss that shit out there, you have to explain where I went wrong. So please start by explaining how providing Medicare to all seniors is not the cause of 97 percent of seniors now having insurance.

Dumbass.

Go **** a goat first of all. 2nd, your last statement about Poverty amongst blacks falling "sharply". First of all considering population increases, even a 41% to 27% decrease may not mean the overall # of poor has decreased at all. 3rd, for all the money we have dumped into this shit, the reduction you are calling "sharply" is anything but.

Did I mention you should go **** a goat?

 

[g5000]

The OP alleges that no changes in poverty have occurred since the War on Poverty™ began.

I provided evidence that HUGE changes in poverty have occurred.

So the OP is debunked.

If you want to argue "correlation does not imply causation", then you better come up with what you think has improved the lives of seniors and blacks so dramatically, and lowered the overall poverty rate so dramatically.

 

[martybegan]

Things would be much worse without the War on Poverty, based on how much the economic fortunes of this country have declined in the last 50 years.

Maybe they might have actually tried to better themselves instead of expecting government handouts. The ******* horror.....

What the war on poverty forgot was that people may need to be shamed out of working their way out of poor life choices (theirs or their parents). There is nothing wrong with helping people, however we removed the stigma of not being able to care for yourself or your family. Couple that with the basic human fact that if you pay someone for something, you get more of it, we created a system that doesn't create the incentive to get out of the system, it creates an incentive to stay in it, both for those in it, and those running it.

So we'd be better off if none of the millions who've received Medicaid in the last 50 years had never gotten a nickel's worth of healthcare assistance.

Prove it.

prove that we would currently be worse off now if they didn't.

 

[g5000]

First of all considering population increases, even a 41% to 27% decrease may not mean the overall # of poor has decreased at all.

Oh. My. God. The stupidity of this statement should simply stand for itself.

 

[martybegan]

The OP alleges that no changes in poverty have occurred since the War on Poverty™ began.

I provided evidence that HUGE changes in poverty have occurred.

So the OP is debunked.

If you want to argue "correlation does not imply causation", then you better come up with what you think has improved the lives of seniors and blacks so dramatically, and lowered the overall poverty rate so dramatically.

And the changes in young poverty could be from an overall increase in living standards DESPITE all the money we have spent on social programs.

And if we didn't do medicaid its not as if people would have just dumped their old folks on the street instead of taking care of them, which is what you are assuming when you bring up doom and gloom scenarios where these programs never existed.

 

[Cassandro]

The OP alleges that no changes in poverty have occurred since the War on Poverty™ began.

I provided evidence that HUGE changes in poverty have occurred.

So the OP is debunked.

If you want to argue "correlation does not imply causation", then you better come up with what you think has improved the lives of seniors and blacks so dramatically, and lowered the overall poverty rate so dramatically.

How has the War on Poverty improved the lives of blacks so dramatically? By rewarding every teenage girl who gets pregnant with her own apartment and spending money?

 

[martybegan]

First of all considering population increases, even a 41% to 27% decrease may not mean the overall # of poor has decreased at all.

Oh. My. God. The stupidity of this statement should simply stand for itself.

Ok, I did the math.

in 1960 there were 18.8 million black people in the US. If you assume a 41% poverty rate, you get 7.7 million poor blacks. In 2012 there are 44 million black people in the US, and a poverty rate of 27% gives 12 million poor black people.

So for all the money we have spent, the problem has gotten worse on a PEOPLE level, actual poor people, not percentages.