Adjustment or Real Crash?

thanks for the sermon, how's the heights from your perch.

The point is that dems/liberals have been off target for a decade on who the middle class is. No one's dissing the poor and both parties will pander too them. It can't be the main, or only strategy.
Do you think there's a high probability that they will vote Republican in huge majority?
The married white voting male is the one that went republican by more than a couple percentage points. It's this middle of the road wage earner we need to bring into the fold. It's not a major change just realigning the party's definition of who's middle class.
 
Topspin said:
thanks for the sermon, how's the heights from your perch.

The point is that dems/liberals have been off target for a decade on who the middle class is. No one's dissing the poor and both parties will pander too them. It can't be the main, or only strategy.
Do you think there's a high probability that they will vote Republican in huge majority?
The married white voting male is the one that went republican by more than a couple percentage points. It's this middle of the road wage earner we need to bring into the fold. It's not a major change just realigning the party's definition of who's middle class.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I forgot that since I don't listen to pundits posing as economists on radio talk shows, I'm not an "expert" and so I can't give sermons. That's your job on this thread. My bad.

Yeah, Republicans are always "pandering" to the poor alright.

I see that you are concerned mainly, and even only, with "getting votes."

I'm talking about economic policy. See, policy affects people. And I care about that. I think we're beyond being on two different pages...we're in two different books.
 
yes we are,
I'm interested in Dems winning to actually get something done.
I probably agree with most of the policy changes you would want.
They just aren't as effective screaming from the outside.
 
Ok Top. There’s plenty of disagreement within the various parts of the party on how to get there. I believe the third way is mostly focused on the middle class, and a message of optimism. They say that optimistic candidates win. Historically, this is true.

On the other hand, glossing over both the negative feelings the middle class themselves have about their economic situations (the middle class squeeze, so well exploited by Lou Dobbs, is real to the middle class), and ignoring the poor, the uninsured, the underemployed, the unemployed, is not only in my opinion, immoral, but also politically unnecessary. In the 06 election, the Democrats who won, and won in RED or Swing states, were economic populists. So there is a place for economic populism (which is often attacked by fiscal cons as class warfare) in today’s political debate. ]

This is why I say that both views can be incorporated into an economic narrative that the dems can use. Is Edwards’ brand of populism pessimistic? I don’t think he’s a pessimist and I don’t think he can be pegged as one.
 
Well, certainly the dems in congress now make more than enough noise for the poor and lower middle class.
Should dems rest on there laurels and think they won on populism, that would be perilous. They won as a referendum against Iraq, which unfortunately will still be going on in 08 untill Hillary shuts it down in 09. So this may be academic.
The middle class is also regular Joe families who feel left out by both parties.
 
funny thing; if you go back and look at the poverty rate history, you will see aht the poverty rate was above 30% until about 1960, when due to economic expansion and the kenendy tax cuts, it dropped like a stone to under 25% by 1965....it has satyed there ever since.......the beginning of lyin bastard johnson's great society welfare state. so you can resonable conclude that the democrats' welfare state program, while good intentioned, has been a misable failure.
 
Well why have the republicans not fixed it then hip ?

:)
Just bouncing the "why have the demoncrats not fixed Iraq" line of the cons.
 
HipLew said:
funny thing; if you go back and look at the poverty rate history, you will see aht the poverty rate was above 30% until about 1960, when due to economic expansion and the kenendy tax cuts, it dropped like a stone to under 25% by 1965....it has satyed there ever since.......the beginning of lyin bastard johnson's great society welfare state. so you can resonable conclude that the democrats' welfare state program, while good intentioned, has been a misable failure.
Click to expand...


http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p60-214.pdf

First of all, I have to question this guy's statistics, when according to our own government,the poverty rate in the US in the year 2000, was 11.3%, which beat the record set in 1973 of 11.1%. So if the record in low poverty rates was set in 1973, and nearly matched in 2000, I don't know what that would have to do with the Kennedy tax cuts.

Further, The Great Society was never funded the way Johnson envisioned it. This was due to him, in the end. You can't have guns and butter (well, unless you are a bushevik, who thinks you can, but those people are deranged and we've got the record deficits to prove it), and so it was the butter that got the short-shrift.

The Great Society never had a chance to fail. It was never fully tried. Though of course, today, we all reap, or someday will reap, the benefits of parts of Johnson's economic plans. That would be medicare and medicaid.

There ain't a senior alive who doesn't love that medicare. And that includes all of the heartless bastards who whined about it...until they got old enough to benefit from it. "What's this going to do for the most important person in the world...ME, ME, ME" is the question cons ask themselves.

Once that question can be answered in a positive manner, well then, they're all for it.
 
funny thing; if you go back and look at the poverty rate history, you will see aht the poverty rate was above 30% until about 1960, when due to economic expansion and the kenendy tax cuts, it dropped like a stone to under 25% by 1965....it has satyed there ever since.......

Yeah, I knew this was baloney too. Its all part of the great rightwing mythology that poverty rates never dropped after the early 1960s, supposedly debunking the Great Society.

As you point out Darla, I think the actual statistics - not the rightwing mythologies - show that poverty plummetted down to rates of around 11-15%, after the early 1960s.
 
Cypress said:
funny thing; if you go back and look at the poverty rate history, you will see aht the poverty rate was above 30% until about 1960, when due to economic expansion and the kenendy tax cuts, it dropped like a stone to under 25% by 1965....it has satyed there ever since.......

Yeah, I knew this was baloney too. Its all part of the great rightwing mythology that poverty rates never dropped after the early 1960s, supposedly debunking the Great Society.

As you point out Darla, I think the actual statistics - not the rightwing mythologies - show that poverty plummetted down to rates of around 11-15%, after the early 1960s.
Click to expand...

Yep...and only to be matched again, not during the Reagan years, when if it was due to tax cuts as Lew claims, you would expect another historic low, but during the CLINTON years.

Opps. Well, just another case of truth having a liberal bias. It's everywhere.
 
well, my NUMBERS may not have been right on, but my premis is correct; the poverty rate was coming down dramatically until shortly after the intitiation of the 1965 'war on poverty' where the poverty level curve flattens out and moves up and down wiht recessions/expansion. the point is that the 'war on povery' program has done absolutely nnothing to help poverty since its inception.
 
here is the data; see column h for pvery rates.

A, population of the 13 Colonies or of the United States
B, % of population that is rural
C, % of population that is urban (cities more than 2500 persons)
D, % of population in work force
E, % of work force in farm labor
F, % of work force that is female
G, % of work force unemployed
H, % of population below poverty level
I, % of non-white population below poverty level
J, % of families on AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
K, first time enrollments in DOL (Department of Labor) work and training
programs

A
1610 350
1620 2,300
1630 4,600
1640 26,600
1650 50,400
1660 75,100
1670 111,900
1680 151,500
1690 210,400
1700 250,900
1710 331,700
1720 466,200
1730 629,400
1740 905,600
1750 1,170,800
1760 1,593,600
1770 2,148,100
1780 2,780,400
1790 3,929,214

A B C D E
1800 5,308,483 93.9 6.1
1820 9,638,453 92.8 7.2
1830 12,866,020
1840 17,069,453 89.2 10.8 46.6 68.6
1850 23,191,876 46.8 63.7
1860 31,443,321 80.2 19.8 47.0 58.9
1870 39,818,449 45.8 53.0
1880 50,155,783 71.8 28.2 47.3 49.4 1880: E drops below 50%
1890 62,947,714 49.2 42.6

A B C D E F G H
1894 18.4
1900 75,994,575 60.3 39.7 50.2 37.5 18.3 5.0 40
1901 4.0
1902 1900: D above 50% 3.7
1903 3.9
1904 5.4
1905 4.3
1906 1.7
1907 2.8
1908 8.0
1909 5.1
1910 91,972,266 52.2 31.0 19.9 5.9
1911 6.7
1912 4.6
1913 4.3
1914 7.9
1915 8.5
1916 5.1
1917 4.6
1918 1.4
1919 1.4

A B C D E F G H
1920 105,710,620 48.8 51.2 51.3 27.0 20.4 5.2
1921 11.7
1922 1920: C above 50% 6.7
1923 2.4
1924 5.0
1925 3.2
1926 1.8
1927 3.3
1928 4.2
1929 3.2
1930 122,775,046 49.5 21.4 22.0 8.0
1931 15.9
1932 23.6
1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20
1936 16.9
1937 14.3 40/45?
1938 19.0
1939 17.2

A B C D E F G
1940 131,669,275 43.5 56.5 52.2 17.4 24.3 14.6
1941 9.9
1942 4.7
1943 1.9
1944 1.2
1945 1.9
1946 3.9
1947 3.9
1948 3.8
1949 6.1

A D E F G H I J K
1950 150,697,361 53.5 11.6 29.6 5.3 30.2 1.66
1951 151,599,000 3.3 28.0 1.48
1952 153,892,000 3.0 27.9 1.47
1953 156,595,000 2.9 26.2 1.34
1954 159,695,000 5.5 27.9 1.47
1955 162,967,000 4.4 24.5 1.44
1956 166,055,000 4.1 22.9 1.43
1957 169,110,000 4.3 22.8 1.53
1958 172,226,000 6.8 23.1 1.73
1959 175,277,000 5.5 22.4 58.2 1.75
1960 179,323,175 55.3 6.0 33.4 5.5 22.2 56.4 1.78
1961 182,992,000 6.7 21.9 56.8 2.01
1962 185,771,000 5.5 21.0 56.1 2.01 0
1963 188,483,000 5.7 19.5 51.1 2.03 34.1k
1964 191,141,000 5.2 19.0 49.8 2.13 77.6k
1965 193,526,000 4.5 17.3 47.1 2.20 157k
1966 195,576,000 3.8 15.7 40.8 2.32 236k
/14.7 /39.7
1967 197,457,000 3.8 14.2 38.2 2.64 833k
1968 199,399,000 3.6 12.8 32.8 3.04 781k
1969 201,385,000 3.5 12.1 30.9 3.69 1M
1970 203,302,031 58.2 3.1 38.1 4.9 12.6 31.6 4.95 1.1M
1971 206,212,000 5.9 12.5 31.3 5.62 1.4M
1972 208,230,000 5.6 11.9 32.4 5.86 2.0M
1973 209,851,000 4.9 11.1 29.3 5.80 1.5M
1974 211,390,000 5.6 11.6 30.5 6.04 1.9M
/11.2 /29.7
1975 213,137,000 8.5 12.3 29.8 6.40 2.8M
1976 214,680,000 7.7 11.8 29.5 6.37 3.2M
1977 216,400,000 7.1 11.6 29.0 6.25 3.4M
1978 218,228,000 6.1 11.4 29.4 6.10 3.9M
1979 220,099,000 5.8 11.6 28.9 6.16 4.0M
/11.7 /28.1
1980 226,545,805 62.0 2.2 42.5 7.1 13.0 29.9 6.57 3.7M
/12.9

A D E F G H
1981 7.6 14.0
1982 9.7 15.0
1983 9.6 15.2
1984 7.5 14.4
1985 7.2 14.0
1986 7.0 13.6
1987 6.2 13.4
1988 5.4 13.0
1989 5.3 12.8
1990 248,709,873 65.3 1.6 45.3 5.5 13.5
1991 6.9 14.2
1992 45.5 7.4 14.8/14.5
1993 45.6 6.8 15.1
1994 6.1 14.5
1995 5.6 13.8
1997 May 4.8
1997 June 5.0
1997 September 5.3 13.7
1997 October 4.7
1997 November 4.6
1998 March 4.7
1998 April 4.3
1998 August 13.3
 
Cypress said:
funny thing; if you go back and look at the poverty rate history, you will see aht the poverty rate was above 30% until about 1960, when due to economic expansion and the kenendy tax cuts, it dropped like a stone to under 25% by 1965....it has satyed there ever since.......

Yeah, I knew this was baloney too. Its all part of the great rightwing mythology that poverty rates never dropped after the early 1960s, supposedly debunking the Great Society.

As you point out Darla, I think the actual statistics - not the rightwing mythologies - show that poverty plummetted down to rates of around 11-15%, after the early 1960s.
Click to expand...

Now this is odd. It doesn't quite match up with Hiplews assertions.

This US Census Beaureau table shows that

-poverty rates dropped dramatically from 1962 to the mid 1970s,

-stayed stable at around 11 or 12% in the late 1970s.

-Poverty rates trended up (got worse) during Reagan

-Poverty rates started trending down (got better) during Clinton

-And then poverty rates started trending up (got worse) during Bush junior.


http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html


Must just all be coincidence.
 
poverty rates dropped much nmor dramatically BEFORE 1965. that was my point. i said nothing about reagan, clinton, etc. so dont' go putting words in my mouth like you always try to do. the poverty level rises and falss mirroring economic activity, not by the government welkfare programs or 'war on poverty'. nothing i said is wrong, except the original percentages I qouted from my middle aged memory.
 
If you want to credit the Kennedy tax cuts for reducing the poverty rate in the 1960s, you'll be hard pressed to explain why the Reagan tax cuts, and the Bush junior tax cuts were accompanied by a significant jump in poverty.


It seems like tax cuts only help the poor, when implemented by a Democrat, no?


I think the drop in poverty in the 1960s was because of medicare, increased college and educational opportunities for the working class, etc. Was there some wasteful and stupid ideas in the Great society? No doubt, there were. BUt, I think all credible experts attribute the drop in poverty to things like medicare and educational opportunities.
 
I've heard that pre welfare black couples stayed together at the same rate as whites.
Post welfare you have much higher single mom % amoung blacks.

Also saw on the news a prog about a black guy robbing illegal immagrants in Tenn when they cashed their checks.
Anybody who doesn't think the welfare mentality doesn't need to change has their head in the sand.

Also most of our poor are fat, so is poverty really that bad in this country?
 
HipLew said:
so how do explain the much great reduction in poverty before all those programs were initiated?
Click to expand...


Before 1963? New Deal - FDR. And to some extent, the reforms of Teddy Roosevelt too. Before them, we had a lassaize-faire from of capitalism leading to the type of society that is well described in Charles Dickens works. The Guilded Age, as it were. ---, which was great for the affluent, but did not promote a large middle class, nor address the masses of poor.


Your turn. Why did poverty increase after the reagan tax cuts, and also after the bush tax cuts?
 
Spin,
Anyone who thinks all welfare recipients are like what you think have their head in some place more stinky than sand.

But then I guees all republicans are like Cunningham....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top