"Poverty in America"... mostly rhetoric

LBJ's Great Society was created because we had 14% of our population living under the "OFFICIAL" POVERTY level. That was 28,000,000 people.
[look it up]

Now half a CENTURY later [I've been here for every minute of it] we now have 14.3% of our population living below the "OFFICIAL" POVERTY level. That's 44,473,000 people. Are we making any headway with that 'next generation' thing? Are we making any headway AT ALL? The obvious answer is NO. Shall we continue doing the same thing over and over again for the next half CENTURY and expect different results? What's the name for that? Insanity?

 

And the war on poverty was only fought for about 15 years not an entire generation before Reagan began dismantling it. Also not 50 years ago.

1960 the rate was near 23%, and actually the rate in 1964 (the kickoff of the war on poverty) looks to be about 20%, 1980 the rate was about 12%... then the war against welfare began.

 

Your chart shows the government is not the answer. A healthy economy is the best help. There is no cure.

A person wrote in to one of the newspaper "doctors" Asking, "Is there a pill to cure addiction?"

 

I suppose, but poverty is provable to be a cause of failed outcomes... and failed outcomes lead to government spending, no matter how you wanna slice it.

 

2009...... 14.3
2008...... 13.2
2007...... 12.5
2006...... 12.3
2005...... 12.6
2004 14/.. 12.7
2003...... 12.5
2002...... 12.1
2001...... 11.7
2000 12/.. 11.3
1999 11/.. 11.9
1998...... 12.7
1997...... 13.3
1996...... 13.7
1995...... 13.8
1994...... 14.5
1993 10/.. 15.1
1992 9/... 14.8
1991 8/... 14.2
1990...... 13.5
1989...... 12.8
1988...... 13.0
1987 7/... 13.4
1986...... 13.6
1985 ..... 14.0
1984...... 14.4
1983 6/... 15.2
1982...... 15.0
1981 5/... 14.0
1980...... 13.0
1979 4/... 11.7
1978...... 11.4
1977...... 11.6
1976...... 11.8
1975...... 12.3
1974 3/... 11.2
1973...... 11.1
1972...... 11.9
1971 2/... 12.5
1970...... 12.6
1969...... 12.1
1968...... 12.8
1967 1/... 14.2
1966...... 14.7
1965...... 17.3
1964...... 19.0
1963...... 19.5
1962...... 21.0
1961...... 21.9
1960...... 22.2
1959...... 22.4

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov2.xls

Poverty levels fluctuate with the economy. I don't know where you can find older data but there is a definite decrease in poverty levels from the early 60s.

 

Nah, he's a republican capitalist whose mantra is 'personal responsibility'. So, basically, if you're poor it's your own fault. 'Out of touch' is probably pretty close to the mark.

 

If you were NOT blinded by loony liberalism, you would have seen that 2 of your liberal cohorts have posted proofs that vibrant capitalism has improved the poverty rate far beyond all the wasted money the ignorant have thrown at the problem and fixed, NOTHING.

And to call PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, "out of touch," tells me I 'm talking to an immature child that lives in great fear. Can't say I blame you tho. If I had to rely on the charity of someone else for my existence, I'd be fearful all the time too. Taking personal responsibility, removes that fear. But you wouldn't understand that.

And WHO is responsible for people being poor? If it is not THEM, then WHO? You? I know dam well its not my fault.

 

How do you account for a "natural" unemployment rate?

Shouldn't our government be more responsible for ensuring full employment in any given market?

 

You made my point for me admirably. You're an anachronism and totally out of touch.

 

An anachronism over no nothing immaturity for life? I'll take it any day.

 

And this weeks nominee for the bestest mostest grammerestically sentence goes to:

 

Sounds perfect to me. I'll have one of my Secretaries check it if it will make you happy.

 

M'eh sorry, grammarish stuff is a bugaboo when people are insulting one another without much debate. Particularly if a superior air is wafting.

EDIT: no need to put your secretaries through that, there are labor laws after all.

 

I was going to post the whole article
But I will just leave the Link to it

People with an ounce of Care & Empathy for their fellows
can take note, of the Conditions the Impoverished endure

& of the Malignant & Degenerate Attitudes that
are being embraced by IGNORANT myopic people
Who know nothing of Poverties Causes or Costs
​

​

Turning Poverty Into an American Crime
​

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28799.htm






[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThPNWG9KWJc"]Barbara Ehrenreich on Democracy Now! talking about the U.S. job crisis & wealth gap. 2 of 3 - YouTube[/ame]



​

.

 

How does your point of view account for corporate welfare which even pays bonuses to persons who are not in official poverty and can afford entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory?

If that class of persons can get welfare without a drug test, why deny and disparage the privileges and immunities of less fortunate persons?

 

Poverty Is Real, No Matter How You Calculate The Numbers

http://www.diatribemedia.com/2011/10/27/poverty-is-real-no-matter-how-you-calculate-the-numbers/


Earlier this week in the Tribune, Dennis Byrne made an attempt to dismiss poverty in America and criticize the Occupy movement by calling poverty an “overstated” problem. Using the typical conservative demon of welfare and government subsidies via research from the right wing Heritage Foundation, Byrne argues that the 46.2 million Americans the government defines as impoverished don’t have it rough enough, thanks to government aid. He asks “Do the numbers accurately reflect the perception most Americans have of an impoverished family living, if not on the streets, like starving squatters in rat-infested hovels?”

Well Dennis, sorry to burst your bubble, but poverty isn’t always rat infested hovels or bloated bellies that appear in commercials in late night television. Is that what the “great society” should truly use to measure how it cares for its vulnerable citizens? If two people in a household of four lose their jobs, go underwater on their mortgage after spending more than a year or two desperately trying to find a job that pays enough to keep their home and put food on the table, does that not count as poor? If a single mother with two children working two minimum wage jobs just to pay rent gets her power shut off because of constant cost increases, but no wage increase, is she just not poor enough? If an elderly man living in subsidized housing is spending the bulk of his income – even with medicaid – on prescription drugs to keep healthy, is his situation “overstated?”

Byrne gives credit that at least 4 percent of Americans that are from homeless or hungry households, saying “to them, destitution is real, not a statistic to be batted around or used for political purposes.” Unfortunately for the rest of struggling Americans, their situation just doesn’t measure up to what appears to be a longing for a new network of Hoovervilles. The idea that the majority of Americans classified as poor aren’t because they receive a form of government aid is one of the most overused conservative talking points during election season. The irony of Byrne’s statement seems to be lost on him.

Most interestingly, Byrne closes his piece by saying “let’s better empathize with the poor and better understand poverty. Give the occupiers credit for that much. But ill-informed rhetoric and unbridled finger-pointing won’t get us there.” To suggest that the majority of poor Americans aren’t actually poor because they might have a roof over their head or aren’t starving on a day to day basis is the furthest thing from empathy and a completely ill-informed view of the realities the American impoverished face.

The core of this argument has been made countless times before. We live in the most luxurious, safe and industrialized country and therefore, shouldn’t complain too hard because “things could be worse.” We haven’t seen bread lines yet or a total economic collapse yet. We shouldn’t have to. What Occupy movements all over the world fight for each day is a way to prevent economic disparity from increasing, to prevent total economic collapse. The people in front of the Federal Reserve each day aren’t simply spouting rhetoric or pointing fingers, they’re actively attempting to address problems that exist at the core of how our society currently operates. They’ve realized business as usual politics and economics cannot be sustained forever. We need new ideas. We cannot rely on our political system, which is so entrenched in maintaining the status quo, to do that. The sooner conservative mouthpieces realize that, the sooner we can move forward to creating a greater society.



.