Poll: FDR # 1 President

[The T]

Give him a half an hour or so, the DNC talking point generation boiler room is short staffed for the holiday.

 

[Greenbeard]

The real question is: Why start a war doomed to failure against an enemy that was already surrendering?

Did you see the chart? Did you see where poverty was heading thanks to spending discipline and tax cuts?

Did you see what happened after LBJ's Central Planning went into effect?

It's true that the poverty rate dropped by 3 percentage points between 1959 and the start of the War on Poverty in 1964. Obviously the overall poverty rate is tied to economic conditions--that's the structural bit I was referring to in my above post. The poverty rate then fell 6-7 additional points over the next five-year period (using the initiation of the War on Poverty as a starting point here).

Again, the aim of the War on Poverty wasn't to address structural features of the economy, it was to set up community-based programs providing job training, work experience, and micro-lending to entrepreneurs.

 

[Bfgrn]

But yet we hear the same cries now as then. And how many billions have been poured into the failing 'Great Society' (Which was for intents and purposes a carry over from FDR, and later Truman after the passing of FDR)?

Poverty will never be erraticated until people pull themselves out of it by making the right choices for themselves and without government interference.

For now? The Government perpetuates it by stomping true independence by creating dependence, at the expense of those of us that have made the correct choices in spite of government intrusion on Liberty of the individual and their undeclared war on the individual.

And all for the sake of their power lust over the people.

It has to cease.

Thank you Darwin, for repackaging and modernizing Adolf's Final Solution...

Please read this famous quote and tell me what the KEY phrase is...


"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

He was speaking of Charity...and not of one devised by Government. It's part of the glue (until now) that has held this Republic together.

And as to your 'Adolph' reference? Typical Statist horseshit. (You may ram that comment right up your poopchute from whence it came). I was nowhere advocating such and you know it.

YOU missed my entire point, and that is one of individual responsibility that comes with cititizenship and the practice of liberty therein. And that is not to infringe on the Liberties of others which the Government does by decree, fiat, and by force.

You may subscribe to the undeclared WAR on the individual that this Statist Government has started...but the majority of us don't and as a matter of fact? WE RESENT IT. And why movements as the TEA Party spring up which you decry and impugne.

November can't come too quickly.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

So...Lincoln was speaking of charity when his pretext was: "The legitimate object of Government"? WOW, why didn't he SAY charity you fucking pea brain???

I KNOW your point, you actually have a trinity...ME, MYSELF and I...fuck everyone else.

The KEY phrase that fascist assholes like you and your moron man crush fascist Levin have removed from your thinking and vocabulary is "individual capacities"

When Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's appointment to lead his war on poverty, his first epiphany was WHO comprised the poor. What he found; more than 50% were children, the TRUE definition OF a dependent, and then the next large group of true dependents were the elderly.

Human beings that do not have the "individual capacities" to 'pull themselves out of it by making the right choices for themselves'

So asshole, go preach your fascist final solution somewhere else.

Mark Levin is a fraud...

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

 

[JakeStarkey]

Game, set, match.

War on Poverty was effective, poverty did decrease significantly. The negative will have to offer proof that the programs did not affect positively the problem. That will be interesting, because the numbers are against the naysayers.

 

[Trajan]

You are aware that for all of the job trng. and education funding and prgm.s provided, black labor participation for their most important demographic, 18-24 went down as the decade progressed...right? There was progress, later in the 70's the number of blacks LPR rose amongst 35-50 sect. but comparatively it was as I alluded, marginal.

Do you have a source? I'd like to see how the numbers compare to today, the age of the TANF and the EITC.

That said, obviously those job training and education initiatives didn't eradicate poverty. They were partially successful at--as the names of the legislation spawning the War on Poverty and the agency it created suggested--creating economic opportunity, which is what education and skills training do; I say partially because this was at the time a very novel experiment, the first major coordinated anti-poverty initiative aimed at reducing poverty through means other than a simple transfer payment, and it ran into significant implementation hurdles (I did a decent amount of work on this and poverty-related policy in my undergrad years).

But the notion that those kind of efforts can eradicate poverty is based on a theory of poverty that's less structural and more personal (even if the personal attributes in question--like poor education--have structural roots). But you can look at all kinds of work (e.g. Piore's dual labor markets) that show poverty to be more a feature of our society and less a feature of those within that society. That's a bit more of a musical chairs conception of poverty--you can better equip individuals to get a chair when the music stops (i.e. escape poverty) but ultimately someone's going to be left standing. So once you've taken the preliminary efforts to make sure all the chairs are filled when the music stops (which is what I'd argue the War on Poverty was ultimately trying to accomplish, with a fair amount of success), you have to turn to broader structural issues if you want to make any more headway--you have to find ways to bring more chairs into the game. But that's not what the War on Poverty was trying to do, that's not what it was intended to do, and so to evaluate on the basis of a goal it wasn't actually trying to accomplish (even if the rhetoric would've suggested that they should've been pursuing that goal) just doesn't make sense.

No, I am using book knowledge, school library and library microfiche memory etc. and books I have here, if it’s a question of, well honesty, I assure you, the data point I made is correct. I know this is the internet and anyone can cough up anything, but they don’t goggle/publish everything. You can have a go at googling the figures from the Bureau of Census, navigating it is a bear.

I can give you figures I have here from a book in front of me; appendix, table 8 -male labor force participation by race and age-, American Social Policy 1950-1980- Charles Murray;

1954, black labor participation aged 18-20 was 78.4%, in 1970- 61.8%. Male blacks age 21-24 1954, 91.1% 1970 82.6. His data comes from the plethora of the gov. issue conglomerations you’ll only find in a really good college library or the L. of congress; stats.; Abstract of the US and the Employment and Trng report of the president ( 1964-74) etc.

Additionally 1954 18-20 white LFP- 70.4%, 1970-67.4%.

Taking these numbers in conjunction with unemployment, table blacks 18-20 14.7 in 54 and 23.1 in 1970, whites 18-20, 13.0 in 54 and 12.0 in 70, the number for blacks rises to 33.0 by 1980, their LFP for remainder of the decade avg.s 72.0, the picture paints itself.

Now looking at AFDC data- table 4- data on afdc enrollment and job trng.; in 1954 the total no. of recipients per 1000’s is 2173…1970? 9659. The number of children? 54- 1639, 1970? 7033.

Knowing what changes came and went ala , AFDC qualifications and structuring one can draw congruences here.


now you are waxing philosophical.

I suggest a reading of Kennedys statements on poverty, his ideas and the framework he envisioned. If there is a disconnect in what they wanted to achieve, whether it was achievable and how the prgm.s and war was crafted, well, ask Micheal Harrington or hell, Schlesinger.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you Darwin, for repackaging and modernizing Adolf's Final Solution...

Please read this famous quote and tell me what the KEY phrase is...


"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

He was speaking of Charity...and not of one devised by Government. It's part of the glue (until now) that has held this Republic together.

And as to your 'Adolph' reference? Typical Statist horseshit. (You may ram that comment right up your poopchute from whence it came). I was nowhere advocating such and you know it.

YOU missed my entire point, and that is one of individual responsibility that comes with cititizenship and the practice of liberty therein. And that is not to infringe on the Liberties of others which the Government does by decree, fiat, and by force.

You may subscribe to the undeclared WAR on the individual that this Statist Government has started...but the majority of us don't and as a matter of fact? WE RESENT IT. And why movements as the TEA Party spring up which you decry and impugne.

November can't come too quickly.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

So...Lincoln was speaking of charity when his pretext was: "The legitimate object of Government"? WOW, why didn't he SAY charity you fucking pea brain???

I KNOW your point, you actually have a trinity...ME, MYSELF and I...fuck everyone else.

The KEY phrase that fascist assholes like you and your moron man crush fascist Levin have removed from your thinking and vocabulary is "individual capacities"

When Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's appointment to lead his war on poverty, his first epiphany was WHO comprised the poor. What he found; more than 50% were children, the TRUE definition OF a dependent, and then the next large group of true dependents were the elderly.

Human beings that are not have the "individual capacities" to 'pull themselves out of it by making the right choices for themselves'

So asshole, go preach your fascist final solution somewhere else.

Mark Levin is a fraud...

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

Bfgrn, you hit it right on the head. The T has missed one of the great foundational principles of this nation that we celebrate today. All people are created equal. All people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We do not succeed as Americans unless we love our brother and our sister as ourselves. Those who wish to place the individual over the community of individuals does not understand Americanism. You do, Bfgrn, and I salute you for it today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are aware that for all of the job trng. and education funding and prgm.s provided, black labor participation for their most important demographic, 18-24 went down as the decade progressed...right? There was progress, later in the 70's the number of blacks LPR rose amongst 35-50 sect. but comparatively it was as I alluded, marginal.

Do you have a source? I'd like to see how the numbers compare to today, the age of the TANF and the EITC.

That said, obviously those job training and education initiatives didn't eradicate poverty. They were partially successful at--as the names of the legislation spawning the War on Poverty and the agency it created suggested--creating economic opportunity, which is what education and skills training do; I say partially because this was at the time a very novel experiment, the first major coordinated anti-poverty initiative aimed at reducing poverty through means other than a simple transfer payment, and it ran into significant implementation hurdles (I did a decent amount of work on this and poverty-related policy in my undergrad years).

But the notion that those kind of efforts can eradicate poverty is based on a theory of poverty that's less structural and more personal (even if the personal attributes in question--like poor education--have structural roots). But you can look at all kinds of work (e.g. Piore's dual labor markets) that show poverty to be more a feature of our society and less a feature of those within that society. That's a bit more of a musical chairs conception of poverty--you can better equip individuals to get a chair when the music stops (i.e. escape poverty) but ultimately someone's going to be left standing. So once you've taken the preliminary efforts to make sure all the chairs are filled when the music stops (which is what I'd argue the War on Poverty was ultimately trying to accomplish, with a fair amount of success), you have to turn to broader structural issues if you want to make any more headway--you have to find ways to bring more chairs into the game. But that's not what the War on Poverty was trying to do, that's not what it was intended to do, and so to evaluate on the basis of a goal it wasn't actually trying to accomplish (even if the rhetoric would've suggested that they should've been pursuing that goal) just doesn't make sense.

No, I am using book knowledge, school library and library microfiche memory etc. and books I have here, if it’s a question of, well honesty, I assure you, the data point I made is correct. I know this is the internet and anyone can cough up anything, but they don’t goggle/publish everything. You can have a go at googling the figures from the Bureau of Census, navigating it is a bear.

I can give you figures I have here from a book in front of me; appendix, table 8 -male labor force participation by race and age-, American Social Policy 1950-1980- Charles Murray;

1954, black labor participation aged 18-20 was 78.4%, in 1970- 61.8%. Male blacks age 21-24 1954, 91.1% 1970 82.6. His data comes from the plethora of the gov. issue conglomerations you’ll only find in a really good college library or the L. of congress; stats.; Abstract of the US and the Employment and Trng report of the president ( 1964-74) etc.

Additionally 1954 18-20 white LFP- 70.4%, 1970-67.4%.

Taking these numbers in conjunction with unemployment, table blacks 18-20 14.7 in 54 and 23.1 in 1970, whites 18-20, 13.0 in 54 and 12.0 in 70, the number for blacks rises to 33.0 by 1980, their LFP for remainder of the decade avg.s 72.0, the picture paints itself.

Now looking at AFDC data- table 4- data on afdc enrollment and job trng.; in 1954 the total no. of recipients per 1000’s is 2173…1970? 9659. The number of children? 54- 1639, 1970? 7033.

Knowing what changes came and went ala , AFDC qualifications and structuring one can draw congruences here.


now you are waxing philosophical.

I suggest a reading of Kennedys statements on poverty, his ideas and the framework he envisioned. If there is a disconnect in what they wanted to achieve, whether it was achievable and how the prgm.s and war was crafted, well, ask Micheal Harrington or hell, Schlesinger.

Trajan, where were the jobs in the 1950s compared to the 1970s? Do you know? Do you know how that change affected black unemployment figures?

You are researching. Go to your books and find the cause.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The real question is: Why start a war doomed to failure against an enemy that was already surrendering?

Did you see the chart? Did you see where poverty was heading thanks to spending discipline and tax cuts?

Did you see what happened after LBJ's Central Planning went into effect?

It's true that the poverty rate dropped by 3 percentage points between 1959 and the start of the War on Poverty in 1964. Obviously the overall poverty rate is tied to economic conditions--that's the structural bit I was referring to in my above post. The poverty rate then fell 6-7 additional points over the next five-year period (using the initiation of the War on Poverty as a starting point here).

Again, the aim of the War on Poverty wasn't to address structural features of the economy, it was to set up community-based programs providing job training, work experience, and micro-lending to entrepreneurs.

You're obviously not looking at the chart the rest of the Board is looking at. Here let me repost it to make sure you're looking at the correct chart.

You'll notice this chart shows poverty rate plummeting from mid 20's down to high-teens and the fall was only stopped when LBJ and the Dems decided to confront the decline head on.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Game, set, match.

War on Poverty was effective, poverty did decrease significantly. The negative will have to offer proof that the programs did not affect positively the problem. That will be interesting, because the numbers are against the naysayers.

As if on cue, the DNC Talking points show up

 

[Oddball]

Bfgrn, you hit it right on the head. The T has missed one of the great foundational principles of this nation that we celebrate today. All people are created equal. All people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We do not succeed as Americans unless we love our brother and our sister as ourselves. Those who wish to place the individual over the community of individuals does not understand Americanism. You do, Bfgrn, and I salute you for it today.

Thanks, uncle Josef!

 

[The T]

Thank you Darwin, for repackaging and modernizing Adolf's Final Solution...

Please read this famous quote and tell me what the KEY phrase is...


"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

He was speaking of Charity...and not of one devised by Government. It's part of the glue (until now) that has held this Republic together.

And as to your 'Adolph' reference? Typical Statist horseshit. (You may ram that comment right up your poopchute from whence it came). I was nowhere advocating such and you know it.

YOU missed my entire point, and that is one of individual responsibility that comes with cititizenship and the practice of liberty therein. And that is not to infringe on the Liberties of others which the Government does by decree, fiat, and by force.

You may subscribe to the undeclared WAR on the individual that this Statist Government has started...but the majority of us don't and as a matter of fact? WE RESENT IT. And why movements as the TEA Party spring up which you decry and impugne.

November can't come too quickly.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

So...Lincoln was speaking of charity when his pretext was: "The legitimate object of Government"? WOW, why didn't he SAY charity you fucking pea brain???

I KNOW your point, you actually have a trinity...ME, MYSELF and I...fuck everyone else.

The KEY phrase that fascist assholes like you and your moron man crush fascist Levin have removed from your thinking and vocabulary is "individual capacities"

When Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's appointment to lead his war on poverty, his first epiphany was WHO comprised the poor. What he found; more than 50% were children, the TRUE definition OF a dependent, and then the next large group of true dependents were the elderly.

Human beings that do not have the "individual capacities" to 'pull themselves out of it by making the right choices for themselves'

So asshole, go preach your fascist final solution somewhere else.

Mark Levin is a fraud...

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

You've outed yourself and the problem with nanny-State government, and YOURSELF as a participant in the war on the individual as practiced BY the government which makes YOU part of the fucking problem .

Way to go asswipe.

YOU are the embodiment, the essence of the quintissential Statist.

You should be proud that you hate this Republic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He was speaking of Charity...and not of one devised by Government. It's part of the glue (until now) that has held this Republic together.

And as to your 'Adolph' reference? Typical Statist horseshit. (You may ram that comment right up your poopchute from whence it came). I was nowhere advocating such and you know it.

YOU missed my entire point, and that is one of individual responsibility that comes with cititizenship and the practice of liberty therein. And that is not to infringe on the Liberties of others which the Government does by decree, fiat, and by force.

You may subscribe to the undeclared WAR on the individual that this Statist Government has started...but the majority of us don't and as a matter of fact? WE RESENT IT. And why movements as the TEA Party spring up which you decry and impugne.

November can't come too quickly.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

So...Lincoln was speaking of charity when his pretext was: "The legitimate object of Government"? WOW, why didn't he SAY charity you fucking pea brain???

I KNOW your point, you actually have a trinity...ME, MYSELF and I...fuck everyone else.

The KEY phrase that fascist assholes like you and your moron man crush fascist Levin have removed from your thinking and vocabulary is "individual capacities"

When Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's appointment to lead his war on poverty, his first epiphany was WHO comprised the poor. What he found; more than 50% were children, the TRUE definition OF a dependent, and then the next large group of true dependents were the elderly.

Human beings that are not have the "individual capacities" to 'pull themselves out of it by making the right choices for themselves'

So asshole, go preach your fascist final solution somewhere else.

Mark Levin is a fraud...

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

Bfgrn, you hit it right on the head. The T has missed one of the great foundational principles of this nation that we celebrate today. All people are created equal. All people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We do not succeed as Americans unless we love our brother and our sister as ourselves. Those who wish to place the individual over the community of individuals does not understand Americanism. You do, Bfgrn, and I salute you for it today.

And we had robust charities until FDR decided to try to eliminate them and replace them with government.

I've explained to you countless times: there is already a political party that exactly matches your "More and Bigger Government" answer to every question, Jake.

 

[Trajan]

Do you have a source? I'd like to see how the numbers compare to today, the age of the TANF and the EITC.

That said, obviously those job training and education initiatives didn't eradicate poverty. They were partially successful at--as the names of the legislation spawning the War on Poverty and the agency it created suggested--creating economic opportunity, which is what education and skills training do; I say partially because this was at the time a very novel experiment, the first major coordinated anti-poverty initiative aimed at reducing poverty through means other than a simple transfer payment, and it ran into significant implementation hurdles (I did a decent amount of work on this and poverty-related policy in my undergrad years).

But the notion that those kind of efforts can eradicate poverty is based on a theory of poverty that's less structural and more personal (even if the personal attributes in question--like poor education--have structural roots). But you can look at all kinds of work (e.g. Piore's dual labor markets) that show poverty to be more a feature of our society and less a feature of those within that society. That's a bit more of a musical chairs conception of poverty--you can better equip individuals to get a chair when the music stops (i.e. escape poverty) but ultimately someone's going to be left standing. So once you've taken the preliminary efforts to make sure all the chairs are filled when the music stops (which is what I'd argue the War on Poverty was ultimately trying to accomplish, with a fair amount of success), you have to turn to broader structural issues if you want to make any more headway--you have to find ways to bring more chairs into the game. But that's not what the War on Poverty was trying to do, that's not what it was intended to do, and so to evaluate on the basis of a goal it wasn't actually trying to accomplish (even if the rhetoric would've suggested that they should've been pursuing that goal) just doesn't make sense.

No, I am using book knowledge, school library and library microfiche memory etc. and books I have here, if it’s a question of, well honesty, I assure you, the data point I made is correct. I know this is the internet and anyone can cough up anything, but they don’t goggle/publish everything. You can have a go at googling the figures from the Bureau of Census, navigating it is a bear.

I can give you figures I have here from a book in front of me; appendix, table 8 -male labor force participation by race and age-, American Social Policy 1950-1980- Charles Murray;

1954, black labor participation aged 18-20 was 78.4%, in 1970- 61.8%. Male blacks age 21-24 1954, 91.1% 1970 82.6. His data comes from the plethora of the gov. issue conglomerations you’ll only find in a really good college library or the L. of congress; stats.; Abstract of the US and the Employment and Trng report of the president ( 1964-74) etc.

Additionally 1954 18-20 white LFP- 70.4%, 1970-67.4%.

Taking these numbers in conjunction with unemployment, table blacks 18-20 14.7 in 54 and 23.1 in 1970, whites 18-20, 13.0 in 54 and 12.0 in 70, the number for blacks rises to 33.0 by 1980, their LFP for remainder of the decade avg.s 72.0, the picture paints itself.

Now looking at AFDC data- table 4- data on afdc enrollment and job trng.; in 1954 the total no. of recipients per 1000’s is 2173…1970? 9659. The number of children? 54- 1639, 1970? 7033.

Knowing what changes came and went ala , AFDC qualifications and structuring one can draw congruences here.


now you are waxing philosophical.

I suggest a reading of Kennedys statements on poverty, his ideas and the framework he envisioned. If there is a disconnect in what they wanted to achieve, whether it was achievable and how the prgm.s and war was crafted, well, ask Micheal Harrington or hell, Schlesinger.

Trajan, where were the jobs in the 1950s compared to the 1970s? Do you know? Do you know how that change affected black unemployment figures?

You are researching. Go to your books and find the cause.

uhm.....survey says no. I have shown you mine, now show me yours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bfgrn, you hit it right on the head. The T has missed one of the great foundational principles of this nation that we celebrate today. All people are created equal. All people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We do not succeed as Americans unless we love our brother and our sister as ourselves. Those who wish to place the individual over the community of individuals does not understand Americanism. You do, Bfgrn, and I salute you for it today.

Thanks, uncle Josef!

Dude, we don't live in Viking Scandinavia. We don't have brute heroes that take by force anymore. We try to corral it in our businessmen. You have an obligation, a social contract, to your community as an American. Period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, I am using book knowledge, school library and library microfiche memory etc. and books I have here, if it’s a question of, well honesty, I assure you, the data point I made is correct. I know this is the internet and anyone can cough up anything, but they don’t goggle/publish everything. You can have a go at googling the figures from the Bureau of Census, navigating it is a bear.

I can give you figures I have here from a book in front of me; appendix, table 8 -male labor force participation by race and age-, American Social Policy 1950-1980- Charles Murray;

1954, black labor participation aged 18-20 was 78.4%, in 1970- 61.8%. Male blacks age 21-24 1954, 91.1% 1970 82.6. His data comes from the plethora of the gov. issue conglomerations you’ll only find in a really good college library or the L. of congress; stats.; Abstract of the US and the Employment and Trng report of the president ( 1964-74) etc.

Additionally 1954 18-20 white LFP- 70.4%, 1970-67.4%.

Taking these numbers in conjunction with unemployment, table blacks 18-20 14.7 in 54 and 23.1 in 1970, whites 18-20, 13.0 in 54 and 12.0 in 70, the number for blacks rises to 33.0 by 1980, their LFP for remainder of the decade avg.s 72.0, the picture paints itself.

Now looking at AFDC data- table 4- data on afdc enrollment and job trng.; in 1954 the total no. of recipients per 1000’s is 2173…1970? 9659. The number of children? 54- 1639, 1970? 7033.

Knowing what changes came and went ala , AFDC qualifications and structuring one can draw congruences here.


now you are waxing philosophical.

I suggest a reading of Kennedys statements on poverty, his ideas and the framework he envisioned. If there is a disconnect in what they wanted to achieve, whether it was achievable and how the prgm.s and war was crafted, well, ask Micheal Harrington or hell, Schlesinger.

Trajan, where were the jobs in the 1950s compared to the 1970s? Do you know? Do you know how that change affected black unemployment figures?

You are researching. Go to your books and find the cause.

uhm.....survey says no. I have shown you mine, now show me yours.

You are saying that your survey does not show where jobs in the 1950s compared to the 1970s were for the blacks. OK. The same factor applies to whites and jobs.

Do you get it yet? Somebody help him out.

 

[Trajan]

Trajan, where were the jobs in the 1950s compared to the 1970s? Do you know? Do you know how that change affected black unemployment figures?

You are researching. Go to your books and find the cause.

uhm.....survey says no. I have shown you mine, now show me yours.

You are saying that your survey does not show where jobs in the 1950s compared to the 1970s were for the blacks. OK. The same factor applies to whites and jobs.

Do you get it yet? Somebody help him out.

no I meant that as a family feud dig, so apparently you did not get that...I showed my data or that is a fraction of it, you show me yours, make statement and lets discuss it...and if you are going where I think you are going, good luck with that because it really has no bearing on this discussion but I'll entertain your argument for what its worth.

 

[Greenbeard]

I can give you figures I have here from a book in front of me; appendix, table 8 -male labor force participation by race and age-, American Social Policy 1950-1980- Charles Murray;

1954, black labor participation aged 18-20 was 78.4%, in 1970- 61.8%. Male blacks age 21-24 1954, 91.1% 1970 82.6. His data comes from the plethora of the gov. issue conglomerations you’ll only find in a really good college library or the L. of congress; stats.; Abstract of the US and the Employment and Trng report of the president ( 1964-74) etc.

Additionally 1954 18-20 white LFP- 70.4%, 1970-67.4%.

Taking these numbers in conjunction with unemployment, table blacks 18-20 14.7 in 54 and 23.1 in 1970, whites 18-20, 13.0 in 54 and 12.0 in 70, the number for blacks rises to 33.0 by 1980, their LFP for remainder of the decade avg.s 72.0, the picture paints itself.

I'm not quite sure how to put these numbers together. Unemployment assumes labor force participation, meaning if someone drops out of the labor force to try and live on AFDC benefits, they don't get counted in the unemployment rate. In fact, that would actually tend to make the unemployment numbers look better. On the one hand, we might expect the unemployment numbers to take a hit as black workers equipped by job training programs, etc entered the labor force and potentially had difficulty finding a place to put their skills to use.

On the other hand you're claiming that roughly 17% of blacks dropped out of the labor force--excluding themselves completely from employment or unemployment figures--and of that population that remained in the labor force, nearly one in four couldn't find a job. This over a period when the poverty rate fell by over ten points. Certainly we'd expect some decline in labor force participation as the Vietnam War ramped up and more blacks entered the armed services but those declines seem a bit high. Something about these numbers doesn't quite smell right.

You said you're taking them out of a Charles Murray book?

Now looking at AFDC data- table 4- data on afdc enrollment and job trng.; in 1954 the total no. of recipients per 1000’s is 2173…1970? 9659. The number of children? 54- 1639, 1970? 7033.

2,173 per 1,000?

You're obviously not looking at the chart the rest of the Board is looking at. Here let me repost it to make sure you're looking at the correct chart. [...]

You'll notice this chart shows poverty rate plummeting from mid 20's down to high-teens and the fall was only stopped when LBJ and the Dems decided to confront the decline head on.

I think it's difficult for you to see because it's squished horizontally in your chart. You'll notice a little inflection point in your graph at around 19%--it's at that point that the decline (which you're correct in saying had already started) becomes a plummet--1964. Try this chart of the same data, it's less squished:

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I can give you figures I have here from a book in front of me; appendix, table 8 -male labor force participation by race and age-, American Social Policy 1950-1980- Charles Murray;

1954, black labor participation aged 18-20 was 78.4%, in 1970- 61.8%. Male blacks age 21-24 1954, 91.1% 1970 82.6. His data comes from the plethora of the gov. issue conglomerations you’ll only find in a really good college library or the L. of congress; stats.; Abstract of the US and the Employment and Trng report of the president ( 1964-74) etc.

Additionally 1954 18-20 white LFP- 70.4%, 1970-67.4%.

Taking these numbers in conjunction with unemployment, table blacks 18-20 14.7 in 54 and 23.1 in 1970, whites 18-20, 13.0 in 54 and 12.0 in 70, the number for blacks rises to 33.0 by 1980, their LFP for remainder of the decade avg.s 72.0, the picture paints itself.

I'm not quite sure how to put these numbers together. Unemployment assumes labor force participation, meaning if someone drops out of the labor force to try and live on AFDC benefits, they don't get counted in the unemployment rate. In fact, that would actually tend to make the unemployment numbers look better. On the one hand, we might expect the unemployment numbers to take a hit as black workers equipped by job training programs, etc entered the labor force and potentially had difficulty finding a place to put their skills to use.

On the other hand you're claiming that roughly 17% of blacks dropped out of the labor force--excluding themselves completely from employment or unemployment figures--and of that population that remained in the labor force, nearly one in four couldn't find a job. This over a period when the poverty rate fell by over ten points. Certainly we'd expect some decline in labor force participation as the Vietnam War ramped up and more blacks entered the armed services but those declines seem a bit high. Something about these numbers doesn't quite smell right.

You said you're taking them out of a Charles Murray book?

Now looking at AFDC data- table 4- data on afdc enrollment and job trng.; in 1954 the total no. of recipients per 1000’s is 2173…1970? 9659. The number of children? 54- 1639, 1970? 7033.

2,173 per 1,000?

You're obviously not looking at the chart the rest of the Board is looking at. Here let me repost it to make sure you're looking at the correct chart. [...]

You'll notice this chart shows poverty rate plummeting from mid 20's down to high-teens and the fall was only stopped when LBJ and the Dems decided to confront the decline head on.

I think it's difficult for you to see because it's squished horizontally in your chart. You'll notice a little inflection point in your graph at around 19%--it's at that point that the decline (which you're correct in saying had already started) becomes a plummet--1964. Try this chart of the same data, it's less squished:

This chart also shows a far greater than 3% drop in poverty between 59 and 64.

Is there some other chart that backs up your fantasy?

 

[boedicca]

The poll was of 200 scholars. It's not difficult to discern their political bias.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Anyone who saw this nations poverty in the 30s, 40s and 50s would never question whether the war on poverty worked. LBJ established a safety net that keeps certain sections of our nation from living in third world conditions. If you saw the news reports during LBJs crusade you would see Americans living without running water, without electricity, without access to nutritious food.
Try to compare that to today. LBJ managed a great accomplishment with his social programs....Viet Nam wrecked him

The New Deal was an Epic Fail. Thanks for admitting it

Far from a fail....

The New Deal and great Society movement turned the US from an uncaring megasociety into a modern society. All great societies care for the less fortunate. Every modern society on earth has a mechanism to provide for its citizens....ALL of its citizens

You mean like Greece does/did?