Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <LBJ's Great Society programs served to reduce Black poverty in America from 55.1% in 1959 to 22.7% in 2001.> I don't see how you can credit the Great Society with that decrease, since the percentage was dropping before the Great Society took effect, and remained stagnant for much of the 70's and 80's, and only started dropping again once the Republicans took over Congress and pressured President Clinton to make good his promise of welfare reform.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A livable minimum wage so they can earn more than their childcare costs.> Since most childcare workers earn minimum wage or close to it, bumping up the minimum wage would increase the cost of childcare, creating an inflationary spiral.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Since most childcare workers earn minimum wage or close to it, bumping up the minimum wage would increase the cost of childcare, creating an inflationary spiral.<< But it would also put more money into the economy as child care workers had more disposable income to spend. Welfare recipients would be earning money, which would also drive consumption which would expand business which would help shareholder value and create even more jobs.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Raising the minimum wage hurts more than it helps. This has been proven again and agian and again. But will the libs who run Blue states ever listen? Of course not.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But it would also put more money into the economy as child care workers had more disposable income to spend. Welfare recipients would be earning money, which would also drive consumption which would expand business which would help shareholder value and create even more jobs.> Artificially driving up wages just causes inflation.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Oh well. I guess it'll just be cheaper to keep people on welfare indefinitely. I'd rather they were working, but if you guys think it's better for them to be on the dole I guess that's what we'll have to have.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I don't see how you can credit the Great Society with that decrease>> You don’t? The Great Society programs made a huge difference in a very short period of time. The percentage of blacks living in poverty went from 55.1 % to 32.2% between 1959 and 1969. That is a 42% decrease in only 10 years. In the subsequent 32 years the poverty rate has gone from 32.2% to 22.7%; a drop of only 30% over a time period three times as long. The Great Society programs clearly had a very large impact.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Oh well. I guess it'll just be cheaper to keep people on welfare indefinitely.> No, it's cheaper to get them working. And to that end, we are supplying subsidized childcare and tax credits for it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The Great Society programs made a huge difference in a very short period of time. The percentage of blacks living in poverty went from 55.1 % to 32.2% between 1959 and 1969.> The Great Society programs didn't start to be enacted until 1965, so their impact wasn't felt until the late 1960's. The poverty rate among blacks had already dropped from 55.1% to 41.8% by 1966. Yes, it dropped to the low thirtys by 1969, but it remained in the 30's throughout the 70's and 80's, when the Great Society programs were in effect. It didn't drop into the twenties until the late 1990's.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<If there is a prize for the political scam of the 20th century, it should go to the conservatives for propagating as conventional wisdom that the Great Society programs of the 1960s were a misguided and failed social experiment that wasted taxpayers' money. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century. Since then, the poverty rate has hovered at about the 13 percent level and sits at 13.3 percent today, still a disgraceful level in the context of the greatest economic boom in our history. But if the Great Society had not achieved that dramatic reduction in poverty, and the nation had not maintained it, 24 million more Americans would today be living below the poverty level. This reduction in poverty did not just happen. It was the result of a focused, tenacious effort to revolutionize the role of the federal government with a series of interventions that enriched the lives of millions of Americans. In those tumultuous Great Society years, the President submitted, and Congress enacted, more than 100 major proposals in each of the 89th and 90th Congresses. In that era of do-it-now optimism, government was neither a bad man to be tarred and feathered nor a bag man to collect campaign contributions, but an instrument to help the most vulnerable in our society.>> Source: <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9910.califano.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonmonthly.c om/features/1999/9910.califano.html</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Of course, the decline in the black poverty rate in the 1960's could have been the result of JFK's tax cuts causing increased economic growth and therefore opportunity.
Originally Posted By planodisney Can someone tell me what percentage of tax revenue the top 10% wage earners in America contribute. Class warfare is so, how dou you say, oh yah, The democratic party at its finest. Do you guys realise that any family with a household income above $90,000 are the targets of this class warfare crap, which probably includes many on this site who point their fingers at the wealthy.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Class warfare is so, how dou you say, oh yah, The democratic party at its finest.<< The GOP is conducting class warfare as well, and they have been much more sucessful at it.
Originally Posted By planodisney More liberal propoganda. We just have a different view on how to help the poor, and I think you know that. But liberals have so much more fun convincing themselves that conservatives dont care about the poor and helpless. If it makes you guys feel superior, by all means keep it up. We care just as much as you do..
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>We just have a different view on how to help the poor, and I think you know that.<< As do we. Perhaps terms like "class warfare" are rooted more in an attempt to discredit the other side's position without having to address their concerns.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>We care just as much as you do.<< Then why cut their medical care? Why make it more difficult for them to afford college? Why cut programs that feed and house them?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Do you guys realise that any family with a household income above $90,000 are the targets of this class warfare crap, which probably includes many on this site who point their fingers at the wealthy.>> Yes, our family makes more than $90K. Considerably more than $90K. We've worked hard to get where we are. Neither my wife nor I have a college degree so you know what kind of effort it took. But we HAVE had many people who have helped us along the way. I feel is not only our obligation but our privilege to give some of that back to others who need it. The well off are doing just fine. The percentage of this country's wealth owned by the top 10% continues to grow. The rich are literally getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. I don’t mind paying the taxes I do... I think I get very good value for my money.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Here are your Republican answers to poverty, Road Trip: "The House is scheduled to begin debate tomorrow on its budget bill, which includes $54 billion in cuts. On the table are cuts of $9.5 billion in Medicaid - by requiring co-pays for pregnant women and children for the first time; $8 billion in foster care, child support enforcement, and aid to the disabled; and $844 million in the Food Stamps Program, which would prevent 300,000 people from receiving food stamps. Forty thousand children would be cut from reduced-price school lunches. Lawmakers intend to follow these with a further cut of $70 billion in taxes that will primarily benefit the top 3% of taxpayers. " (From an email sent out by Jim Wallis and Sojourners)
Originally Posted By planodisney TomSawyer #36, Noted. I bet, while i dont have any facts, that republicans give at least as much to charity, i would venture to say more, than Democrats. Remember that post you made a while back RoadTrip about red states giving more to charities than blue states. I believe it was based on percentage. Not saying that democrats arent heartfelt, I know they are, but Republicans, and wealthy peopl in this country, do give a great deal.
