Re: "More Americans living in poverty now than there were in 1965...Economic realities on Main Street"

"T.Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Jas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "T.Carr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>snp> > > > > >   The poverty rate was 15% or so when the "Great Society"
programs
> > > > > > were initiated.(during a economic slowdown) Yet during
subsequent
> > > > > > economic down cycles,(1981, 1990 recessions) the poverty rate
> > > > > > increased to its "pre great society" levels.
> > > > >
> > > > > Funny, 1981 = Reagan and 1990 = Bush, Sr.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > > Remember that it was called Voodoo economics then by Bush
senior...and
> >  it
> > > > indeed turned out to be such by the end of the 80's?
> > >
> > >   Remember that the same economic model remained in place throughout
> > > the 1990's? Or perhaps you would care to show the legislation and
> > > policies enacted by Clinton that reversed it? Even todays marginal
> > > income tax rates are a fraction of the Carter levels. (top rate 70+%)
> >
>
> Jas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Clinton raised taxes a bit in the 90s with a resulting boom (albeit one
with
> > a false bubble). The economy in much of the LBJ-Kennedy  60's was in
reality
> > much better.
>
>   Couple of points that you are forgetting. 1) The "boom" was already
> in place before Clinton was elected. The recession was over in the 2nd
> quarter of 1991 ( www.bea.gov), long before Clinton was elected. 2)
> Clinton did increase taxes in 1993, and then cut them before the 1996
> elections (after the GOP gained control of Congress). Interesting that
> the deficits were eliminated after the GOP sponsored tax cut

Deficits cut the boom, not theb tax cut. OK..... we are going in circles.

You still have not address how very similar programs inother countries with
similar voodoo economic models have led to dismal failure BOTH economically
and socially, yet some who have reversed such policies have led to economic
security and better happier citizens. Tax  increases from 33% to 39% for the
upper income brackets in NZ for instance was followed by the fastest growing
economy in the OECD. When they cut the rates in the 80's the economy shrank
considerable, crime and suicide skyrocketed.


>
> >
> > Also, remember:
> > There are more Americans living in poverty now than there were in 1965.
Over
> > thirteen million of them are children. (The US has the worst child
poverty
> > rate of all the world's industrialized countries.)
>
>   Also remember:
>
>   There are many more Americans living in the nation than there were
> in 1965. Thats why percentages are the revelant metric.

 per capita percentage in 65 is that same as one in 03!

As far as
> poverty rate, the threshold required to be living in poverty varies
> from country to country. A person living in "poverty" in the US is
> doing relatively well compared to other nations.


Did you look at the graph you posted!?


>
>  Last year alone, another
> > 1.7 million Americans slipped below the poverty line, bringing the total
to
> > 34.6 million, one in eight of the population, and up from 31.6 million
in
> > 2000. (See "Economic Fault Lines in America's States," AFL-CIO report).
>
>   I dont subscribe to "analysis" from a major trade union, but rather
> would use the data from the government sources. The data indicates
> that poverty rates increase after recessions. As employment is a
> lagging economic indicator, it is no suprise that poverty numbers and
> rates follow the same trend.
>
>   http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty02/pov02fig1.jpg
>
>
> T.Carr
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > T.Carr
> > >
> > >  Well,
> > > > perhaps not so funny, since many of baby Bush's current staff worked
for
> > > > Reagan -such as Rumsfeld who was shaking hands with his old "friend"
> >  Saddam
> > > > at the time while his good friend saddam gassed Kurds (and never
> > > > apologized..in the least).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   It is debatable that any real impact in the poverty rate was
> > > > > > achieved with  the LBJ programs.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Looked like downward movement on the chart presented to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > T.Carr
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  You should really think about what you're saying
> > > > > > > before you say it, you know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > >