Poll: FDR # 1 President

[CrusaderFrank]

The chart shows that, as planned, the Great Society start slowing the down trajectory of falling poverty almost immediately.

I think it's difficult for you to see because you have your "I am Thy Government" rose colored glasses on

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Trajan, your information fails to negate the great success of the War on Poverty. And of course the suburbanization and ex-urbanization at the expense of the city decreased the tax base for jobs for black Americans, thus increasing black unemployment. Your original counter rebuttal still is fail. Study Greenbeard's resized graph in post 217.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Trajan, your information fails to negate the great success of the War on Poverty. And of course the suburbanization and ex-urbanization at the expense of the city decreased the tax base for jobs for black Americans, thus increasing black unemployment. Your original counter rebuttal still is fail. Study Greenbeard's resized graph in post 217.

Jake, have you noticed you've expressed your undying love to FDR and LBJ and "Mo n' Bigga Government " here countless times?

Not like I'm keeping track, but I think new members to the Board would find your "I'm a Real Republican" claim more than a little flimsy.

 

[Greenbeard]

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?

Eyeballing it apparently isn't working for you so let's turn away from the visual aids and move to the table from which the chart is made: you can find it in this Census Bureau report (see: Appendix. Time Series Poverty Estimates on page 18).

The poverty level in 1959 was 22.4%. When the War on Poverty was initiated five years later, it stood at 19% (a decline of 3.4%). Five years after that it was at 12.1 percent (a decline of 6.9%--a significantly faster decline). Exactly what I just said and exactly what your own chart shows.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Also, all the charts show poverty rates in a free fall until LBJ and the Dems were able to put a stop to it by implementing the "Great Society" of Wards of the State and Democrat Voters programs

 

[JakeStarkey]

The decline in poverty was 63.8% during the Johnson years of War on Poverty.

Some people here are having trouble accepting the obvious fact: the program worked.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again, the charts all show that the Great Society changed the slope of the decline until they were finally able to stop the fall and create a permanent Government fed underclass.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The decline in poverty was 63.8% during the Johnson years of War on Poverty.

Some people here are having trouble accepting the obvious fact: the program worked.

So you're a support big government social programs?

If it worked, when does it end?

 

[Greenbeard]

Again, the charts all show that the Great Society changed the slope of the decline...

No kidding, they made it sharper (3.4% decline in the five years prior, 6.9% in the five years during).

 

[boedicca]

They do work, but not in the way JS thinks. The purpose of such Big Government Social Programs is to make Big Government even Bigger. They do accomplish that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again, the charts all show that the Great Society changed the slope of the decline...

No kidding, they made it sharper (3.4% decline in the five years prior, 6.9% in the five years during).

And created a permanent government subsidized underclass, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We're ignoring Kennedy tax cuts? Interesting.

President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." -- President John F. Kennedy

 

[Fenris Wolf]

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.

Right, the world owes you something or everything. Leftist would do some good to learn some things from Viking Scandinavia, such as their individuality and personal freedom, while at the same time the responsibility for one's own actions. The fact that a successful society can exist for so long without government regulations and rules eats you up, especially the Viking foreign policy of we shall not sacrifice sovereignty to a foreign power. I'm sure if your Viking history is as skewed as your American history you probably have some serious misconceptions of them as well.

 

[Trajan]

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?

that is correct or that is the data is in his book from the sources he lists.

my bad, that chart is delineated as total number( in thousands), my apologies.


At first it may appear that way, yes the numbers are well,l grim, but, if you look at the stats say outlays in afdc yes back to that again, then add in the welfare afdc Supreme court decisions, examples;

- 1961 states permitted to give afdc to homes with unemployed husband
-1966 HEW issues guidelines no at home eligibility checks, BUT that is struck down in 68.
-1967 enactment of 30 and a third rule ( primarily good)
-1968 man in house rule struck down
-1969 residency requirements struck down

so a woman can claim full benes even if they are sharing a domicile with an unmarried male, well, see where I am going here? I think the data ( add in Gault vs. Arizona) and a few other choice social engineering skews and here we are.

Law of unintended reward- a social transfer that increases the net value of being in the condition upon which the reward is based...( not mine, paraphrased)

Have a read of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment (SIME/DIME) 1971-78 ( pub: 1983)....the sponsors revolted at the results but upon many examinations had to admit the results.


We created a pernicious dependent class, call it the under class, call it what you will, this all helped impugn many of the good work envisioned and yes done, ala the prgm.s of the war on poverty and has led us here, whats the out of wedlock birth rate again? What are their chances at/of 'success'?

 

[The T]

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.

Whoomp! There it is...

Exactly.

 

[The T]

We're ignoring Kennedy tax cuts? Interesting.

President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." -- President John F. Kennedy

JFK by today's Statist Standard du Jour...would be called a nefarious Teabagger by this uneducated bunch of misfits.

 

[The T]

The decline in poverty was 63.8% during the Johnson years of War on Poverty.

Some people here are having trouble accepting the obvious fact: the program worked.

So you're a support big government social programs?

If it worked, when does it end?

And they speak of Slavery while perpetuating nuveux slavery of the 21st Century. These people are conflicted as Hell.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

that is correct or that is the data is in his book from the sources he lists.

my bad, that chart is delineated as total number( in thousands), my apologies.

Again, I can't help but be a bit suspicious of his numbers, since the federal government lists the total number of AFDC beneficiaries (in thousands) in 1970 as 8,303, with the number for children being 6,104.

There may be a reason his numbers are inflated by 16% but I can't say offhand what it is.

 

[rightwinger]

The decline in poverty was 63.8% during the Johnson years of War on Poverty.

Some people here are having trouble accepting the obvious fact: the program worked.

So you're a support big government social programs?

If it worked, when does it end?

Why does helping Americans have to end?

 

[rightwinger]

We're ignoring Kennedy tax cuts? Interesting.

President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." -- President John F. Kennedy

JFK by today's Statist Standard du Jour...would be called a nefarious Teabagger by this uneducated bunch of misfits.

No he wouldn't......He would be appalled at the antics and rhetoric of the Tea Baggers