And now you know -
The rest of the story.
Regards,
Shodan
One little-mentioned effect of the “welfare state” was that for the most part it abolished pauper labor. By setting a floor beneath which people would rather stay on welfare than work (especially those who before had been the sole support of minor, elderly and disabled family), it reduced the pool of workers willing to underbid union labor.
That sounds like a good thing.
No, it was a horrible thing. It prevented a lot of people from starving and being homeless while working, thus not motivating them to get a college degree in engineering and science and math and turning white and making something of themselves like they know they should, dammit!
In this debate its useful to examine poverty rates by age group over time and considering it was seniors who benefited the most extensively from the War on Poverty (ie Medicare and expanded Social Security), the verdict is clear-http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Poverty_Rates_by_Age_1959_to_2011._United_States…PNG
Par for the course that conservatives generally credit Bush’s tax cuts for the uptick in the economy shortly after they went into effect. Except that the economy was ALREADY recovering from the slight recession at the end of Clinton’s term without them. But try to tell a conservative that the tax cuts were negligible and they’ll curse you out. Ask them to prove causation between the tax cuts and the upsurge they’ll say it was self-evident.
Both sides cling to their ideals no matter what and economics is sufficiently complex that there are always factors in it where neither side’s philosophy can be truly proved or disproved.
And so the should curse you out. Economics is an imprecise science. The Bush tax cuts were as good a reason as any that the recovery continued. Not that it matters now, it was all an illusion. Short term economic goals took priority over the long term health of the economy.
Note the same people who try to suggest the Bush tax cuts did not stimulate the economy are the same ones saying Obama’s stimulus did boost the economy. Both acts lead to short term economic demand increasing. Tax cuts and increased Govt spending have roughly the same short term consequences on demand. One may be more efficient at doing the job, but both have the same results short term.
Well it did lead to record levels of Americans being unemployed today. The unemployed poor, the ones who are poor today and will still be poor in a decade.
“… as good a reason as any” does not equal a good reason or ANY reason, really. You essentially made the exact same point I did. That both sides are full of it. Only dems don’t advocate increasing taxes or spending for their own sake because they think it helps the economy. They’re just not intrinsically opposed to them. Pubs cling to cutting taxes as a “cure all” for all things economic, the way an autistic child might cling to their favorite blankie.
That both sides are full of it was the point I was trying to make. My ideology is on the Right but im quite capable of realising that both sides have hypocritical stances and play petty politics; petty politics that invariably play fast and loose with facts. Republicans in general cling to cutting taxes as away of both benefitting the economy and trying to starve the government of funds. It as an economic and poltical belief. Democrats in general do the opposite. Again, this is an economic and political belief. Rarely do Democrats try to starve Government of funds. Therefore their own intrinsic belief is in higher taxes. Plus, depending upon which wing of the party we are talking about many Democrats see no political advantage in less people becoming free of the welfare state. Their own political success relies upon people becoming long term welfare recipients of some sort or another. Cutting taxes will not help Democrats in their long term personal goals. Is this Democratic Party reliance on welfare recipients intrinsic enough for you?
I hate to be that guy, but…cite? I’m going to need a little more than just your word before I swallow that. Got anything to back this idea up?
.
If you had some point in quoting my post before posting that, it sure beats the hell out of me what it was. If you want to discuss the Bush Tax cuts, why don’t you open a thread about that? Here, we’re discussing the war on poverty. Well, the OP made a attempt to do so, and perhaps will return at some point and flesh out his fleshless argument. Who knows?
Not even close. Not seeing the govt as an entity deserving of starvation doesn’t inherently mean wanting higher taxes. And democrats don’t even see things as the “welfare state” the way republicans do. Are you talking about food stamps, for instance? Well, when you have full time workers having to go on food stamps to supplement their income enough so they don’t have to choose between food and rent - yet it’s REPUBLICANs who continually resist raising the minimum wage… Who’s REALLY keeping people on the “welfare state”?
The point was, people only ask for causation when they don’t like the data they’re seeing. LBJ’s great society programs plus lower poverty - if you don’t like that correlation you’d ask for evidence of direct causation. Bush tax cuts plus uptick in the economy - if you like that correlation, no further evidence required.
No cite is needed. This is not something that is generally admitted to. The evidence I have is what I see here in the UK. Vast swaithes of working class and middle class people in the UK relying on state handouts for generation after generation; and little to no pressure from the Labour Party for this to stop anytime soon. Almost every Labour policy manifesto since 1945 is for more Government(even Blair was guilty of this but less so). The Labour template is roughly the same as the Democrat one. If you want a cite just look at every Western democracy for the past 70 years or so. Barely a Leftist party amongst them calling for the apron strings of the state to be cut. A coincidence? Hell, no. And since we know American exeptionalism doesn’t exist its fair to say a big government political ideologue in Paris or London is largely the same as one in Washington.
No, he really doesn’t. The assertion critics are making is, “The War on Poverty is a failure.” All of the correlations BG posted contradict that claim; causation really isn’t necessary. People get hung up on the propter hoc fallacy and apply it when it really isn’t germane. Correlation is a significant statistical tool, though some would have us believe it isn’t.
Yes, to argue BG’s points conservatives would have to present equally convincing evidence, correlational or otherwise. Not seeing that happening, when (outside the Dope) any blatant lie, however farfetched, will fly.
When someone starts a thread with that statement, then they will have to prove it. If BG can prove his case, he should come back into this thread and do so.
As I said in my first post, he might be right.
Perhaps he should post some cost benefit analysis to the amount spent on fighting poverty since 1962 and current rates of poverty in the US. He should also post how much the US currently spends per year on welfare and current poverty rates. He may also wish to post poverty rates during the 1950’s and whether these rates were falling or rising. Im willing to believe the War on Poverty brought short term benefits. However, I have serious doubts about the benefits long term and the causation suggested in the OP figures. I have done a quick search on historic poverty rates. Some interesting results. What is noticeable is that 9 out of 10 pages dealing with post war poverty in the US cut off at 1959 or 1960. Im guessing two reasons for this; more accurate figures from the early 1960’s - which suggests the possibility of them being inaccurate, or, the poverty rates were also falling during Eisenhower’s Presidency.
I would contend (even without a cite or data to back me up) that poor people in the US today are “richer” than poor people were before LBJ’s programs started, and definitely are richer than when he was a grade-school teacher in a southern Texas school. Whether that’s because of his programs or because of general changes in the economy, I cannot say.