1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#802 Feb 10 2016 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I also enjoy the part where the 1st chart shows poverty goes UP right after we get GOP presidents.


Every single time nice Nixon.


But those aren't the only times it goes up, right? One of the sharpest increases was in the late 70s, which continued until about 83, which corresponds best with Reagan getting his economic platform in place and operating. Your claim kinda correlates with Bush 41's term starting and then going up about when Clinton's starts. But then the next poverty increase occurs prior to Bush 43 taking office, once again reversing (slightly) about the middle of his terms, then going up again at the very end of his terms due to the whole housing bubble thing. And even your Nixon comment is wrong, since the general poverty trend is downward between 68 and 72, and then goes back up during the Ford and especially the Carter administrations.

There are as many change points that don't match up with any specific party holding the White House as do, so I'm not sure you can make such a correlation at all. Actually, the only portion that follows your claim is the whole Bush 41 to Clinton time period. And even then, only somewhat.

There's a lot more elements to this. It's not like when a president of one party takes office, all the policies and programs already existing and in effect just magically disappear or change. I mean, I guess if you're going for a cheap "funny" for folks already inclined to believe it, it works, but the data doesn't actually support what you're saying, and frankly, it's kind of absurd to think it would.

Another way to look at the data is to examine when there are longish downward trends in poverty rather than upward ticks. And those occur two times. Once between about 83 and 88, and the other between about 93 and 99. In one of those cases, we had a Republican president, and the other a Democrat. So no correlation there. Interestingly enough, we had a GOP president and DEM congress during one period, and the reverse during the other. But we had split governments at other points as well, and didn't see such a trend. So... Um... Really no correlation in terms of who is in office and where here. What we can say however, is that the two sharp upward trends both occurred when we had Democratic controlled congresses. Once with a Dem in office, and the other with a GOP in office. Again though, that's not enough data points to make any more than the most weak correlation.


The bigger picture IMO, is the myth that Johnson's "war on poverty" was in any way the cause of a sustained reduction in real poverty rates. The data just doesn't support that claim at all. The specific fluxuations after that point aren't really significant. It still remains within a 4% range for the entire timeline past that point (although I'll point out that this chart doesn't include most of Obama's time in office), after previously dropping significantly (10% over less than 10 years). And the one clear demarcation at the point at which our poverty rate leveled off was Johnson's administration.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#803 Feb 10 2016 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
One could make an argument that welfare merely stabilized and institutionalized poverty among those already poor, and may have prevented a wave of prosperity which was at that time sweeping the nation from fully reaching certain populations.

One would be foolish to do so since there's zero evidence to that effect.


Except that the poverty rates for certain populations, most notably black populations did not benefit nearly as much from this process as others did. Here's an opinion piece that details many of the negatives. Even if you don't agree with his conclusions (and some of his rhetoric comes off a bit heavy handed), his data is accurate. Those most harmed by the implementation of the welfare state programs were those who had not yet benefited fully from the growing prosperity in the US.

One of the things that is lost when looking just at the final totals, is that most of the gains were produced in white populations, which tend to wash out the losses in black populations, due to differences in relative numbers. This has lead us to some pretty massive social and economic gaps between those two groups. Gaps which liberals regularly attempt to use for political purposes, but don't seem to grasp are likely the direct result of their own policies.

Quote:
What we do have evidence of is an unprecedented cap on poverty in the US.


For white people? Yes. For populations that had much higher poverty rates prior to the implementation of welfare programs and were thus "trapped" in government dependence at much higher rates? Not so much. For Latino populations that previously had similar statistics to whites, but are now lumped in statistically with new immigrants from poor and low skilled backgrounds? Again, not so much.

The data strongly suggests that these populations, and arguably the entire US population as a whole, would have been better off if we'd never created those programs in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#804 Feb 10 2016 at 7:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Except that the poverty rates for certain populations, most notably black populations did not benefit nearly as much from this process as others did. Here's an opinion piece that details many of the negatives

You know what he doesn't list? The actual poverty rate for black populations, much less over time. Lots of time lamenting broken marriages and single mothers and too many immigrants coming into the US and blaming it all on Johnson.
Quote:
The data strongly suggests...

What data?

Edit: Haha, the Confederate flags on the guy's site as he rants about illiterate black mothers is pretty awesome. Looking over the site, the guy's a Civil War apologist (one of the "It was never about slavery but about LIBERTY!") types. Great choice of people to study, Gbaji Smiley: laugh

Edited, Feb 10th 2016 7:49pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#805 Feb 10 2016 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except that the poverty rates for certain populations, most notably black populations did not benefit nearly as much from this process as others did. Here's an opinion piece that details many of the negatives

You know what he doesn't list? The actual poverty rate for black populations, much less over time. Lots of time lamenting broken marriages and single mothers and too many immigrants coming into the US and blaming it all on Johnson.


Um... Really? How about instead of speculating and implying, you go look the rates up yourself?

Quote:
Quote:
The data strongly suggests...

What data?


Quick google:

Quote:
The poverty rate for all persons masks considerable variation between racial/ethnic subgroups. Poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics greatly exceed the national average. In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians.


That data. Were you seriously asking this question? Your own party constantly talks about the difference in economic conditions between blacks and whites, but you magically "forget" about it now? That's terrifically convenient.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#806 Feb 10 2016 at 7:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... Really? How about instead of speculating and implying, you go look the rates up yourself?

Because you were making the argument?

Were you going to show the year over year data showing that other races were disproportionally harmed (relative to their starting positions)? Why are you showing me a single year's data? How is that supposed to support your argument about poverty rates since Johnson?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#807 Feb 10 2016 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Here's another interesting bit of data. What's interesting is that we see the same leveling off process among Blacks (and an actual increase in poverty among Hispanics, probably due to immigration affects), but it levels off at a much higher rate than among whites. A really interesting bit is the sharp downward poverty trend during Clinton's term. But it's not like there were massive new social programs enacted then. What we had was a significant economic boom.

Which seems to indicate that while whites are more or less currently at that "cap" point, and thus don't gain much in terms of poverty rates from economic growth, that prosperity has still failed to reach many Black's and Latinos, who under our current system only seem to benefit when the economic boom is really strong. Which suggests that a less constrained free market would be the best way to help them out of poverty and *not* more social spending. For those of us who view those social programs as a disincentive to work, this makes complete sense. The perceived value of the welfare benefits themselves act as an opportunity cost to actions that may result in self sufficiency. Thus, for populations already heavily dependent on welfare, the economic benefits of employment have to be more significant and apparent for them to shift from one source of to another in sufficient numbers to affect the overall stats much.

Which is what we saw in the 90s. Arguably our biggest economic boom period since the 50s (which was the last time we saw such a large delta in term of poverty). How much more data do you need to accept that it's economic growth and jobs that raise people out of poverty and not social welfare programs? We need more money in the hands of big businesses and other job creators, not less. We need more money in Wall Street, not less. We need more rich people because that'll result in fewer poor people as well.

The economic policies of the Left are completely backwards.

Edited, Feb 10th 2016 6:13pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#808 Feb 10 2016 at 8:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... Really? How about instead of speculating and implying, you go look the rates up yourself?

Because you were making the argument?

Were you going to show the year over year data showing that other races were disproportionally harmed (relative to their starting positions)? Why are you showing me a single year's data? How is that supposed to support your argument about poverty rates since Johnson?


Because there are two arguments at hand:

1. Overall poverty was decreasing prior to the implementation of Johnson's welfare programs and leveled off after they came into effect, suggesting either no, or a negative effect on overall poverty as a result.

2. Black and Latino poverty was already higher than white poverty at the time, and has continued to be higher since. Black and White poverty has decreased by about the same rate over the same time, but has not reached parity. So it doesn't matter which year we use.


I was responding to your point in relation to number 2. You argued that we'd hit a "cap' in terms of poverty rates, presumably as a counter to the leveling off I'd pointed out earlier. I countered that we have done this for whites, but not for Blacks and Latinos and that they are still "stuck" at higher poverty rates. I have further speculated that the existence of the very welfare programs initially created by Johnson are largely responsible for this and have made arguments to that effect (and linked to sources making similar arguments).

In response you have... what?

Edited, Feb 10th 2016 6:10pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#809 Feb 10 2016 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You haven't "countered" anything. Poverty has indeed been capped. Poverty may be capped higher for select groups but that is different than it not being capped. You fail to show that poverty rates among those groups are directly related to any particular piece of social policy. As you handily gave a chart showing, black poverty is indeed lower, white poverty and Asian poverty is lower and the only group without demonstrably lower rates are Hispanics (which you agree is largely due to immigration effects).

If that was your idea of a "counter" then, uh, thanks I guess. You're welcome to "speculate" on whatever you want or read whatever right wing blogs you think will be really enlightening and tell you what you wanted to hear but you've failed to make any sort of real argument for it. Which is pretty funny since this started with you preening about how "liberals" probably don't really understand effects on poverty.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#810 Feb 10 2016 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Haha, the Confederate flags on the guy's site as he rants about illiterate black mothers is pretty awesome. Looking over the site, the guy's a Civil War apologist (one of the "It was never about slavery but about LIBERTY!") types. Great choice of people to study, Gbaji Smiley: laugh
I'm sure all gbaji's black neighbors in his condo would tell you how NOT racist he is.




If there were any black people in his condo.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#811 Feb 10 2016 at 9:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji doesn't actually read stuff, he just Googles for what he wants and posts it without bothering to look at the context. "Hey, this guy agrees with me! Cite!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#812 Feb 10 2016 at 9:34 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Hey!! ElneClare is here!!!


Do I remember correctly that your fine husband works at/on the Constitution?

Edited, Feb 10th 2016 8:35pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#813 Feb 10 2016 at 11:27 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except that the poverty rates for certain populations, most notably black populations did not benefit nearly as much from this process as others did. Here's an opinion piece that details many of the negatives

You know what he doesn't list? The actual poverty rate for black populations, much less over time. Lots of time lamenting broken marriages and single mothers and too many immigrants coming into the US and blaming it all on Johnson.


Um... Really? How about instead of speculating and implying, you go look the rates up yourself?



Didn't really seem to be speculating or implying, more like he was pointing to a verifiable lack of information in the link.

Also, every time you use the words "interesting data" or "interesting tidbit", I skip past the rest of your post.

Because you don't understand what the word interesting actually means....You're not interesting, is what I am saying....If you catch my drift.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#814 Feb 11 2016 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Here's an opinion piece [...] How about instead of speculating and implying
The best jokes write themselves.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#815 Feb 11 2016 at 12:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
The part I like best is when gbaji tries to look at and interperet charts and graphs.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#816 Feb 11 2016 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Hey!! ElneClare is here!!!


Do I remember correctly that your fine husband works at/on the Constitution?

Edited, Feb 10th 2016 8:35pm by Bijou


He worked on the Consellation, but was fired in Oct. while on temporary disability due to inuring his back, shoveling snow on the USS Taney, while at work a year ago. We're waiting for treatment to work, and case be settle, so he can start looking for work again.


Edited, Feb 11th 2016 1:45pm by ElneClare
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#817 Feb 11 2016 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You haven't "countered" anything. Poverty has indeed been capped. Poverty may be capped higher for select groups but that is different than it not being capped.


I never said it wasn't "capped". My point was that it was capped at a level higher for the very groups that the Left claims to care about most, and that in the absence of welfare programs being created en-mass right as segregation was ending, it's probable that black poverty would not have remained capped at that higher rate, but would have continued to drop down to match with white poverty rates. The welfare state has not only not reduced poverty, but has stabilized it at a rate that negatively impacts minority groups that were the most poor when it was created.

Which has been the exact same argument I've made on this subject every single time it's come up.

Quote:
You fail to show that poverty rates among those groups are directly related to any particular piece of social policy.


Except that the groups who "benefited" the most from those social policies are still stuck with the highest rates of poverty today. At the very least, we can clearly state that these policies haven't helped them, and can certainly make an argument that they have harmed them.

What part of welfare assistance creates an opportunity cost for upward mobility do you not get? It's quite apparent that if we have one group of people growing up in a neighborhood where 90% of those around them are on welfare, and jobs are scarce, that this will both decrease their employment opportunities and increase their acceptance of welfare as an acceptable alternative. Which will lead to successive generations becoming more dependent on that assistance and less able to leave it. And when those populations start off skewed with regard to race, then result several generations later will also be skewed by race.

Which is precisely what we see today. If Johnson's "war on poverty" had worked, we should see that those groups who were most poor when it stared should be less poor today. Presumably the whole point was to help poor people not be poor in the future,, right? I mean, it's a "war on poverty", not "give poor people stuff to make their poverty more comfortable". We should be measuring success by looking at self sufficiency among future generations of those who were poor at the time it was enacted. But when we do that, we see that it has not only not helped them, but has made their condition worse.


Quote:
As you handily gave a chart showing, black poverty is indeed lower, white poverty and Asian poverty is lower and the only group without demonstrably lower rates are Hispanics (which you agree is largely due to immigration effects).


And? White poverty is also lower. The point is that aside from Latinos, all groups became less poor, but that trend started prior to the creation to the welfare state, and there's no indication to suggest that it would not have continued in the absence of said state. The question is: What impact did Johnson's Great Society programs have on poverty? And the answer seems to be that it had little to no effect on white poverty over time, and appears to have trapped blacks at a higher rate. So if your objective was to keep blacks as poor and disenfranchised as possible, then this did a great job of it. If you actually wanted to "end poverty", it failed. Miserably.

Quote:
If that was your idea of a "counter" then, uh, thanks I guess.


You're welcome. Sometimes you might pay attention to what I'm actually countering.


Quote:
You're welcome to "speculate" on whatever you want or read whatever right wing blogs you think will be really enlightening and tell you what you wanted to hear but you've failed to make any sort of real argument for it. Which is pretty funny since this started with you preening about how "liberals" probably don't really understand effects on poverty.


Ok. What's your explanation for why black poverty is still roughly double that of whites? I have one. Do you?

Are you actually trying to argue that there's some innate difference between blacks and whites that make it normal and OK for black poverty to be "capped" higher than white? Cause I'd love to hear that one! If not, then there's something wrong with the fact that blacks are so much more likely to be poor than whites. I happen to think that what's wrong is the welfare state. Again, what's your explanation?

Edited, Feb 11th 2016 5:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#818 Feb 11 2016 at 7:58 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ok. What's your explanation for why black poverty is still roughly double that of whites? I have one. Do you?
Racist a-holes like you.


Darn, that was easy.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#819 Feb 11 2016 at 8:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Ok. What's your explanation for why black poverty is still roughly double that of whites? I have one. Do you?

All sorts of institutional reasons. None of which fit neatly on a bumper sticker.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#820 Feb 12 2016 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
wow I kind of missed the asylum.
#821 Feb 12 2016 at 6:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ok. What's your explanation for why black poverty is still roughly double that of whites? I have one. Do you?

All sorts of institutional reasons. None of which fit neatly on a bumper sticker.


Wait? You're saying that the explanation I gave fits neatly on a bumper sticker but "White Racism" doesn't? Methinks you're projecting a bit there Joph.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#822 Feb 12 2016 at 6:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sure, go with that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#823 Feb 14 2016 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Ok. What's your explanation for why black poverty is still roughly double that of whites? I have one. Do you?


#824 Feb 15 2016 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Olorinus wrote:
wow I kind of missed the asylum.
It's a lot like missing heroin.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#825 Feb 17 2016 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
wow I kind of missed the asylum.
It's a lot like missing heroin.
and it's delicious with ketchup too.

Smiley: drool2
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#826 Feb 17 2016 at 8:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Ok. What's your explanation for why black poverty is still roughly double that of whites? I have one. Do you?




Can't watch videos at work, or at least not in the browser (and wouldn't get sound anyway). Care to explain things in your own words?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 237 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (237)