Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (749141)

10/24/2013 3:25:45 PM

From: SilentZ

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574006

Z, the "War on Poverty" was instituted to reduce the poverty rates that were seen in the 1950's and 1960's, which were sky-high. Even then, the poverty rate was already falling before the program was put into place, so if you just looked at the graph,

Yes, they were falling. Why? Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc... -- because JFK and LBJ were preceded by other Presidents who were good on the issue -- Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower. There's actual history and actual actions there.

Who said this?

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

I'll give you a hint. He was wrong. Not about them being stupid, but about their number being negligible, as they gained power 14 years later and have spent the next 45 years (and counting) working actively to undermine the policies he said they wouldn't, and they're from his own party.

>so if you just looked at the graph, the "War on Poverty" may have actually stopped the decline in poverty.

Oh, that's cute.

>Now look at the most recent years, when the poverty rates have increased as a result of the recent recession. Government spending on Medicare, SS, and low-income programs like food stamps are at record highs, both in absolute dollars and in percentage of GDP.

>There's a simple explanation for all of this. Government programs do not reduce poverty rates, at least not directly. They can only assist those who end up in poverty due to various circumstances, but they don't reduce the number of those dependent on these programs. They were never intended to.

You're confusing stabilizers with stimulus. There's more than one kind of government program, and they have different purposes.

I mean, think about it... when you're playing baseball, you have both a backstop and a bat (for simplicity's sake, we'll ignore the catcher in this metaphor). Hitting the ball will propel you forward, but if the batter doesn't hit the ball and it gets by, it can keep going pretty far. But the backstop's also not winning you a game. You should have them both. And both government and private business can put up some good hitters (and you need both kinds), but private business ain't so terrific at being a backstop.

-Z