Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Depending Upon


The poverty rate was coming down precipitously in this country and for the most part people weren't having children out of wedlock, and then came the Great Society. Thank you so much, the political class..............................................................................P.S. Yes, there are some possible intervening variables here, but this is one hell of a strong correlation and you know, YOU KNOW, that if the trend-lines had been plotted out in the opposite direction the left would have been singing and dancing that it was some sort of proof-positive that the Great Society was effective....And the fact that it makes such total fucking sense. Of course when you subsidize something you're going to get more of it. Hello!

Posted by at

8 comments:

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

In ferreting through wd's comments I accidentally deleted a couple of others.............Jerry, that's your theory (that government policy brought down poverty through SS and that Ronald Reagan stopped the positive trend through his tax cuts) and there are some serious issues with it. a) The poverty rate had been coming down precipitously prior to SS (if you look at the standard of living in the 18th and 19th Centuries, most Americans lived in abject poverty and it was largely through free markets and capitalism that this standard of living sky-rocketed - though, yes, SS may have ultimately helped) and b) this downward trend in poverty ended in the 1960s, right around the time that the Great Society started and well before President Reagan ever came to Washington. I mean, I know that you want to try and blame the Republicans for everything and all but, no, this one's on you guys.

November 12, 2013 at 9:22 PM
Les Carpenter said...

Meanwhile the top 1% keep getting richer, the working poor keep losing ground, and the middle class is slowly but steadily shrinking. And yet, as a nation, we continue to dance around the issues with our fractured national head(s) stuck in 19th and 20th century paradigms about how things work. It's the 21st century and fortunately or unfortunately as the perception(s) may be we can't turn the clock back. We can only live and affect or change our currrent and present realities.

My money is on we continue with our collective national head(s) up our national ass.

November 13, 2013 at 3:06 AM
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The downward trend in the poverty rate halted in the mid-60s - at the very time that the Great Society started! The fact that you have people like Jerry trying to pin this on Reagan is absurd. And look at the illegitimacy rate. It absolutely skyrockets once the Great Society begins. And it's so logical. Once you start subsidizing out of wedlock births of course you're going to get more of them.............Les, yes, the category 1% is getting richer but the actual human beings in the category have actually seen a downward trend in their income over time.......And as far as the middle-class shrinking goes, I think that that has a lot more to do with the distribution curve moving to the right while the definition of what constitutes the middle class has stayed the same than it does any sort of economic cataclysm. You have Sowell's book, "Economic Facts and Fallacies", right? Turn to the chapter on income fallacies and he displays the prestidigitation.

November 13, 2013 at 5:08 PM
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And, yes, the poverty rate in the early years of the Reagan administration ticked up slightly but that was because he inherited an absolute mess from Carter; 7% unemployment, 14% inflation, a 16% prime interest rate (and that was for the good customers), etc.. It eventually went down and the economy did exceedingly well for years.

November 13, 2013 at 5:14 PM
dmarks said...

Will: The black middle class experienced very strong, unprecedented growth under which President? Ronald Reagan... not Barack Obama.

November 15, 2013 at 7:01 AM
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And he did it without destroying the social safety net, too (social spending as a percentage of GDP in 1988 was basically what it was in 1980 when you include state and local).

November 15, 2013 at 11:23 PM
dmarks said...

Will said: "Ronald Reagan stopped the positive trend through his tax cuts"

Yes, that is a preposterous theory. Of course the oppose will happen: poverty will go up if the government steals more from the people, and it will go down if the government steals less.

November 16, 2013 at 2:54 AM
dmarks said...

Will said: "And he did it without destroying the social safety net"

Yes... social spending (spending on the poor) increased a lot under Reagan.

Reagan also believed that African-Americans were the equal of whites and could succeed if given a fair chance (in distinct opposition to the racists on the Left who believe that blacks are social/intellectual cripples who can only succeed if given a special advantage).

November 17, 2013 at 2:54 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)