The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Not that I'd agree, but I think the difference is helping them get a good education/have a good upbringing vs. giving them a massive inheritance to fight over in their mid-40s.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Not that I'd agree, but I think the difference is helping them get a good education/have a good upbringing vs. giving them a massive inheritance to fight over in their mid-40s.

Sure, but there's plenty of regular parents who work their asses off and live good lives so that their kids can get the opportunity at college.

Sure, it sucks for the kids that don't have that, but life isn't fair, it's never been fair, and the government surely can't make it fair. The best people do still overcome obstacles. As a society, the important thing is that we have a mechanism to, as best as possible, make sure the best and brightest can emerge to contribute regardless of where they start in society. I don't think its desirable or possible that we manufacture the exact same breaks for everyone (or take the breaks away from those who get them to keep things equal).

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But what if the "lower bracket" doesn't provide something worthwhile? Just take the money from the "rich parents" and equally distribute? What if the motivation for becoming "rich parents" was to take care of their immediate family? Isn't that usually the case?

I guess the idea is to take the money from the rich worthless person and give it to the poor worthless person so you end up with 2 middle class worthless people.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I guess the idea is to take the money from the rich worthless person and give it to the poor worthless person so you end up with 2 middle class worthless people.

Wouldn't that just make 2 lower class worthless people? Someone's always going to be at the bottom and not be happy about it, and feel that they're owed more. It's always worth it to increase that lower standard of living as much as possible, but taking too much away from people is very risky. You're bound to lose quite a bit of it in the redistribution process, creating a net result of the government (and its corporations) getting richer and the people as a whole getting poorer.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by molson

Wouldn't that just make 2 lower class worthless people?

Depends on how rich the rich person is. I guess if they are rich enough you could end up with 2 rich worthless people. (Or I guess if you think someone with a net worth of $200K is rich then you could end up with 2 lower class people). My comment was more tongue in cheek than anything.

[ISiddiqui]

Depends on how you redistribute. There are ways to make it more painless than others... for example, ending tax breaks to richer folks and some corporations (agg subsidies are particularly odious) and increase the tax breaks for those on the lower end and small businesses.

That wouldn't necessarily damper innovation that much (depends on the regulatory context), but would allow for an easier redistribution.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not a parent, but isn't one of the "themes" of parenting working hard for your kids? Is that such an evil, neo-conservative proposition that has just emerged in recent years?

Not everyone can be a doctor but that avenue is certainly possible for almost anyone, though obviously easier or harder depending on your background. Colleges love to throw money at super-achievers in poorer public schools who excel.

Who's saying good parenting is evil?

My point is that getting out of poverty is a lot harder than just needing the right amount of will power. Class matters and recent studies have shown that it matters more than it used to. I don't know how best to help people get opportunities, but I do know that the answer isn't always lower taxes and less redistribution. Scandinavian countries do very well in studies of social mobility and have much higher taxation and far more generous social programs. Of course other countries have similar taxation and social programs, but don't score as highly.

Overall I'd like people to stop thinking of poverty and wealth in purely Randian terms. Being poor doesn't necessarily mean that you're a lazy parasite and being wealthy doesn't necessarily mean you're a Galtian genius.

As for anti-poverty programs, the three I'd like to see more of are all early intervention, child nutrition, early literacy and lead abatement. Unfortunately I don't think there's a lot that can be done once a child enters high school, but there's a lot we could do for young children if we had the will.

[AENeuman]

I think it is almost meaningless to paint upward mobility in broad strokes. Within the poverty class there are groups that are much more likely to succeed than others. Besides race there is gender, geographic, immigration, education of parents, etc. Fact is there are groups where it has been nearly impossible for the last 30 years upward mobility to occur, while there are other one-and-done groups

Much like the homeless problem there is recent/transition homeless and chronic homelessness. The two groups are very different in their needs and outlook. I think the poor class can also be put into a similar groups.

[larrymcg421]

I sure hope Democrats don't forget what Susan Collins did today when she's up again in 2014, not to mention when they consider voting for these friendly moderates like Fiorina.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I sure hope Democrats don't forget what Susan Collins did today when she's up again in 2014, not to mention when they consider voting for these friendly moderates like Fiorina.

speculation is that snowe and collins will both have to run as independents or consider switching to (D) to avoid being primaried anyways.

[ISiddiqui]

Also Maine is kinda weird. While fairly moderate on both economic and social issues, they tend to be more left (center-left, of course) on economic issues, but more (center)right on social issues.

[flere-imsaho]

Speaking as a native of Maine, I have a really hard time believing either Snowe or Collins could be primaried. Snowe, for one, is basically a Maine institution, and Collins has enormous influence in the state GOP.

But, if it happens, I could see Snowe going I (but definitely not D), but I'd imagine Collins would go down with the GOP ship.

This is assuming the Tea Party will still be relevant in 2014. I doubt it will.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Speaking as a native of Maine, I have a really hard time believing either Snowe or Collins could be primaried. Snowe, for one, is basically a Maine institution, and Collins has enormous influence in the state GOP.

But, if it happens, I could see Snowe going I (but definitely not D), but I'd imagine Collins would go down with the GOP ship.

This is assuming the Tea Party will still be relevant in 2014. I doubt it will.

fair enough. that just seems to be what is being bandied about in the media lately.

thanks for the insider's view.

[JPhillips]

It's a long way off, but the polls for a 2012 GOP primary look really bad for Snowe. A generic conservative challenger leads 59% to 31%. She's got good approval numbers from Dems and Independents, but she's well in the negative with GOP voters.

I'd almost guarantee that if she had to run this year she would have gotten death by tea party.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But what if the "lower bracket" doesn't provide something worthwhile? Just take the money from the "rich parents" and equally distribute?

Then its still worthwhile to redistribute - it helps society as a whole and helps the children of the less fortunate.

If society is sensible then they invest a proportion of those taxation funds into education and improving the standard of living and health of those people, that encourages them to persevere and succeed where their parents might not have done.

What if the motivation for becoming "rich parents" was to take care of their immediate family? Isn't that usually the case?

To be honest I don't think so (or I would hope not).

I'm not 'rich' - but I want my kids to grow up and learn to stand on their own two feet, to the extent that I withhold somethings which they could have because I don't want them to become spoiled brats.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Depends on how you redistribute. There are ways to make it more painless than others... for example, ending tax breaks to richer folks and some corporations (agg subsidies are particularly odious) and increase the tax breaks for those on the lower end and small businesses.

That wouldn't necessarily damper innovation that much (depends on the regulatory context), but would allow for an easier redistribution.

Incidentally why is ending the current 'tax breaks' seen as so horribly socialist? - if you look back at recent history in America the tax situation AFTER that is done is still far lower than your historic average.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Have you lost your mind? Trying to talk common sense to a damned liberal?

I do try and see things from all perspectives and am quite open in admitting that my views are entrenched from my European upbringing as yours undoubtably are from your own.

[JPhillips]

And Reagan's rate would be higher if you averaged it over his eight years.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Incidentally why is ending the current 'tax breaks' seen as so horribly socialist? - if you look back at recent history in America the tax situation AFTER that is done is still far lower than your historic average.

I agree that the current tax changes aren't that big a deal, but that's not where the argument here tends to lie. The issue repeated on this board again and again is about social mobility, which isn't going to dramatically change unless we have truly drastic tax increases, and not just on income. I don't think liberals can claim "no big deal" on the tax increase, and yet basically claim that their vision eliminates wealth classes (or at least increases social mobility, assuming that's a desirable thing). I have asked before what kind of taxes would be necessary to achieve the desired level of social mobility and nobody's ever answered.

Edit: (And I never have felt like I understood the entire story on the 94% highest tax rate. I do believe we had super-rich people back then that weren't forking over 94% of their annual income.)

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by molson

I agree that the current tax changes aren't that big a deal, but that's not where the argument here tends to lie. The issue repeated on this board again and again is about social mobility, which isn't going to dramatically change unless we have truly drastic tax increases, and not just on income. I don't think liberals can claim "no big deal" on the tax increase, and yet basically claim that their vision eliminates wealth classes (or at least increases social mobility, assuming that's a desirable thing). I have asked before what kind of taxes would be necessary to achieve the desired level of social mobility and nobody's ever answered.

For me, after the report of how the stimulus money was used in los angles i'm starting to think people are looking at any tax hike as merely an increase in waste

[molson]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

For me, after the report of how the stimulus money was used in los angles i'm starting to think people are looking at any tax hike as merely an increase in waste

I'm with you there. Every dollar that goes from the people into the corpo-government structure is not going to come back to the people as a full dollar. That doesn't mean the government isn't necessary for all kinds of things (there was a sentiment here a while ago that it was inconsistent to be both against wasteful government and also be in favor of things like public roads), but I think it's important thing to keep in mind and account for.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

fair enough. that just seems to be what is being bandied about in the media lately.

Yes, and both Nate Silver and Markos Moulitsas have been bandying about the Snowe idea for a good year or so now. I don't want to try and claim that Maine is a unique and special snowflake (no pun intended), but I don't think they know what they're talking about in this instance.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's a long way off, but the polls for a 2012 GOP primary look really bad for Snowe. A generic conservative challenger leads 59% to 31%. She's got good approval numbers from Dems and Independents, but she's well in the negative with GOP voters.

I'd almost guarantee that if she had to run this year she would have gotten death by tea party.

At the risk of sounding like MBBF, I just don't believe these polls. I think that if someone actually tries to primary Snowe, they end up getting crucified by the local media, a broad spectrum of respected Maine politicians, and probably most of their neighbors.

[larrymcg421]

Yeah lets not forget how popular Mike Castle was in Delaware. He consistently won re-election with margins in the 60s and 70s. Even in 06 and 08 (two of the biggest Dem years ever) and in a blue state, he won with 57% and 61% of the vote.

Snowe and Collins may be Maine institutions, but there's no reason outside influences couldn't come in and give them trouble.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Then its still worthwhile to redistribute - it helps society as a whole and helps the children of the less fortunate.

If society is sensible then they invest a proportion of those taxation funds into education and improving the standard of living and health of those people, that encourages them to persevere and succeed where their parents might not have done.


To be honest I don't think so (or I would hope not).

I'm not 'rich' - but I want my kids to grow up and learn to stand on their own two feet, to the extent that I withhold somethings which they could have because I don't want them to become spoiled brats.

My purely Memphis, TN, view on this is that most money that gets redistributed to the less fortunate will be a waste.

I have a friend whose wife owns some rental property in the area. She has a tenant that was cronically late/not paying the rent. She figured she would go over and try to work out a deal with the tenant. She got there, the tenant had the latest Blackberry, a girlfriend/wife with nails that had just been done in the last week or so, and a new car completely tricked out in the driveway, but they couldn't make rent.

I'd love to say that this is the minority here, but its not. There is no pride in many of the communities of the poor/less fortunate here. Poor communities deny there is a problem, they blame the local government and the education system for their ailments. Government hand outs are not the solution.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

And as we all know, anecdotal evidence trumps all.

You deserve a cookie!

No one has any proof about what works. We can spout all the theories we want, we can reason through it all we want. There is an issue, but none of us have an answer that will work across the country.

What I can speak to is what I see in my community. There are communities elsewhere where the poor have pride and will try to lift themselves out of their plight. Not so much here, there is too much blame to go around in the eyes of the less fortunate.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: (And I never have felt like I understood the entire story on the 94% highest tax rate. I do believe we had super-rich people back then that weren't forking over 94% of their annual income.)

Of course they weren't. The tax rate doesn't work that way. It is 94% of all income over a certain threshold. It's a common mistake... for all your income that falls within a tax bracket you are charged the tax rate for that tax bracket, and only the amount of money that goes over the top limit is charged on the top tax rate.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yes I know, bootstraps, faith and tax cuts will save us all.

And actually, we do have proof of what works. Look at inequality and levels of poverty in those evil socialist countries like Denmark and Sweden and here.

But to your larger point, why should the poor have pride? They're treated like shit by most of the population, seen as leeches by the population, etc.

They've seen their schools destroyed, their jobs outsourced, and when they ask for help, they're told to "do it by yourselves" to people who've gotten plenty of help from the government via the tax code. Of course, people don't understand this all, but see the system and how it works sort of unconsciously.

Oh and guess what, to a large extent, there is a lot of blame to go around for why we have such a massive poverty level and lot of blame is right in the hands of those who believe in the "free market."

Good post. Particularly the point I bolded in the middle.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Yeah lets not forget how popular Mike Castle was in Delaware. He consistently won re-election with margins in the 60s and 70s. Even in 06 and 08 (two of the biggest Dem years ever) and in a blue state, he won with 57% and 61% of the vote.

Snowe and Collins may be Maine institutions, but there's no reason outside influences couldn't come in and give them trouble.

The main difference is by the time Snowe and Collins are up for reelection, I think the Tea Party craze dies down significantly. Especially, as I assume will happen, Obama cruises to victory in 2012 as the Republicans put up someone cruddy.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

And actually, we do have proof of what works. Look at inequality and levels of poverty in those evil socialist countries like Denmark and Sweden and here.

I think I understand your point, but, the population of those two countries pale in comparison to the united states though. The amount of resources needed for their poor, isn't even close to the amount of resources needed for ours. The total population of those two countries is about 15 million. The total amount of people in the US that are at or below the poverty level is about 46.5 million people. I'm also sure we have our own unique 'problems' with the poor here that are not easily resolved by mirroring their style of programs.

The truth of the matter is, both parties are almost complete failures when it comes to this or it would have been solved years ago.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The main difference is by the time Snowe and Collins are up for reelection, I think the Tea Party craze dies down significantly. Especially, as I assume will happen, Obama cruises to victory in 2012 as the Republicans put up someone cruddy.

I think that depends on two factors. One, how do the tea party candidates do in 2010? If they win 2/3 of those races they will be in control of the party until the next election. Two, does the economy pick up. If unemployment is over 8% in 2012 I can't see any way for Obama to win.

My big fear is what happens if the tea party has great success in 2010 and the economy stays in the crapper. Unfortunately I don't see much of anything stopping President Palin at that point.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

It's largely the same thing with larger countries like France or Germany. They have much lower poverty levels than we do and they have large, complicated economies like ours.

Also yes, those countries need less resources, but guess what, we as a country have access to far more resources. And, most of the things (easier access to higher education, single-payer health care, larger welfare programs in general, less advantages given to the rich via the tax code, etc.) are easily possible by this nation if we actually wanted too.

Do corporations have has much influence in those countries and all of its political parties as they do here? Do the liberal parties in those countries insist on propping up the financial industries and health insurance companies like the Democratic party does in this country?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yes I know, bootstraps, faith and tax cuts will save us all.

And actually, we do have proof of what works. Look at inequality and levels of poverty in those evil socialist countries like Denmark and Sweden and here.

But to your larger point, why should the poor have pride? They're treated like shit by most of the population, seen as leeches by the population, etc.

They've seen their schools destroyed, their jobs outsourced, and when they ask for help, they're told to "do it by yourselves" to people who've gotten plenty of help from the government via the tax code. Of course, people don't understand this all, but see the system and how it works sort of unconsciously.

Oh and guess what, to a large extent, there is a lot of blame to go around for why we have such a massive poverty level and lot of blame is right in the hands of those who believe in the "free market."

How come you never articulate what policy changes need to happen here to just make this joint like Sweden if that's so easy? What kind of tax rates, what do we do about corporations, etc, what needs to happen to implement the SteveBollea vision that will save America? If you were running for president, and you had some legislative influence, what's your big plan to reverse the rest of us and our evil ways (I do love how you always use the phrase "evil socialists", when using the same kind of hyperbole to describe everyone to the right of you - while at the same time not offering any solutions for anything).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I think I understand your point, but, the population of those two countries pale in comparison to the united states though. The amount of resources needed for their poor, isn't even close to the amount of resources needed for ours. The total population of those two countries is about 15 million. The total amount of people in the US that are at or below the poverty level is about 46.5 million people. I'm also sure we have our own unique 'problems' with the poor here that are not easily resolved by mirroring their style of programs.

The truth of the matter is, both parties are almost complete failures when it comes to this or it would have been solved years ago.

You can't look at absolute numbers. You have to look at a measure like GDP and then at the percentage of the population and compare those ratios.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think that depends on two factors. One, how do the tea party candidates do in 2010? If they win 2/3 of those races they will be in control of the party until the next election. Two, does the economy pick up. If unemployment is over 8% in 2012 I can't see any way for Obama to win.

My big fear is what happens if the tea party has great success in 2010 and the economy stays in the crapper. Unfortunately I don't see much of anything stopping President Palin at that point.

I dunno...her unfavorable ratings among the majority of the population are still very high.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I dunno...her unfavorable ratings among the majority of the population are still very high.

She's still more popular than the GOP in general and they're going to have win big. When there are only two choices dissatisfaction with the ruling party can only be expressed by voting for the minority party.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I've done it multiple times, but short two sentence version. Public financing of political campaigns, single-payer health care, and reform of the tax code to be truly progressive. That's three things to start off with that are fairly big picture.

Public financing of all political campaigns is the big one. People act like it'd be some huge expense too, but it doesn't need to be. Just reduce the amount of advertising by a bajillion-fold. Put the focus more on giving the voters the ability to compare the two candidates.

Hell - I'd even argue for a standardized "ballet pamphlet" laying out the positions of each candidate in 25 words or less, on any number of specific, pre-defined issues.

That way you might actually get people voting based on policies instead of party affiliation.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Then its still worthwhile to redistribute - it helps society as a whole and helps the children of the less fortunate.

I think in the short term it might make strides, but it will never last. Consider someone who owns a home vs someone who rents vs someone who is given a place to live. You progressively are lowering the interest level in taking care of that property. Anything that is "free" or a right and not a priviledge has been and always will be exploited or ultimately abandoned.

While your words are nice and to oppose that means you are mean, it's unrealistic to get a happy ending from it.

If society is sensible then they invest a proportion of those taxation funds into education and improving the standard of living and health of those people, that encourages them to persevere and succeed where their parents might not have done.

We already invest a huge proportion of taxes into public education and no ammount of money fixes what is culturally broken. Private schools spend much less and achieve much more.

To be honest I don't think so (or I would hope not).

I'm not 'rich' - but I want my kids to grow up and learn to stand on their own two feet, to the extent that I withhold somethings which they could have because I don't want them to become spoiled brats.

Well, I've got some good news for you. Spoiled rich brats spend/lose money, they don't earn it. They are giving back everytime they blow all their money.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think that depends on two factors. One, how do the tea party candidates do in 2010? If they win 2/3 of those races they will be in control of the party until the next election. Two, does the economy pick up. If unemployment is over 8% in 2012 I can't see any way for Obama to win.

My big fear is what happens if the tea party has great success in 2010 and the economy stays in the crapper. Unfortunately I don't see much of anything stopping President Palin at that point.

I think if it is under 9%, then no way can Palin win. The GOP only wins under that scenario if they nominate a strong candidate. Palin would need the worst possible conditions to have a shot. Remember, even with unemployment at 9.6%, Obama has a 45% approval, despite the general attitude that he's at Bush levels of unpopularity.

It looks even worse for Palin when you look at favorability ratings, AP has Obama 57/42, while Palin is at 38/58.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We already invest a huge proportion of taxes into public education and no ammount of money fixes what is culturally broken. Private schools spend much less and achieve much more.

yes, but not everyone can afford private schools - and they can also afford to be selective about the students that they take, which also contributes to their better performance.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think if it is under 9%, then no way can Palin win. The GOP only wins under that scenario if they nominate a strong candidate. Palin would need the worst possible conditions to have a shot. Remember, even with unemployment at 9.6%, Obama has a 45% approval, despite the general attitude that he's at Bush levels of unpopularity.

It looks even worse for Palin when you look at favorability ratings, AP has Obama 57/42, while Palin is at 38/58.

and that's not even factoring party affiliation into favorability ratings.

far more independents approve of Obama then approve of Palin. do the math.
(and by approve i mean "have a favorable view")

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I've done it multiple times, but short two sentence version. Public financing of political campaigns, single-payer health care, and reform of the tax code to be truly progressive. That's three things to start off with that are fairly big picture.

What's your idea of a "truly progressive" tax code, that will actually accomplish free-flowing social mobility or whatever, or the desired level of equality?

I agree single-payer health care would be a huge improvement, in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency. But Obamacare is actually several steps further away from that v. the status quo, IMO. It's like a trick.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

So basically, never mind real data? You just want to feel the way you want to feel. Okay.

The data is fine, it just doesn't give the full picture. There is moderate income mobility into adulthood, but the data shows that it's still extremely difficult to move from a lower bracket to a much higher one and vice versa.

The issues for me isn't what happens when you become adults, but how those who enter adulthood without a proper opportunity are at a huge disadvantage. Like I said earlier, you're throwing a lot of kids into adulthood down 40-0 in a football game. Sure they can end up succeeding, but that's going to be real tough.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

What's your idea of a "truly progressive" tax code, that will actually accomplish free-flowing social mobility or whatever?

I agree single-payer health care would be a huge improvement, in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency. But Obamacare is actually several steps further away from that v. the status quo, IMO.

How so? Obamacare gets rid of the pre-existing conditions problem, which is one of the single biggest issues of the current system. It makes everyone available for coverage. There will be road bumps, but those two factors alone make it better than the current system.

I mean, I would greatly prefer single payer. Obamacare is far from perfect, but it's a step ahead of doing nothing when your major plan was clearly not going to pass, which is what Clinton did.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

It's largely the same thing with larger countries like France or Germany. They have much lower poverty levels than we do and they have large, complicated economies like ours.

Also yes, those countries need less resources, but guess what, we as a country have access to far more resources. And, most of the things (easier access to higher education, single-payer health care, larger welfare programs in general, less advantages given to the rich via the tax code, etc.) are easily possible by this nation if we actually wanted too.

But I agree, the centrist to center-right Democratic Party and the right-wing Republican Party have been failures on poverty. However, the last true liberal on economics (LBJ) presided over a drop by nearly 50% in the poverty rate after the Great Society was passed. So, there ya' go.

However, any one I have talked to from that era has pointed to that as the start of the current ills of the poor today. Also, poverty was already on a sharp decline prior to Great Society so you cannot attribute all 50% of the poverty rate decline from 1960 to 1970 on Great Society.

[JPhillips]

Everybody I talked to about the fifties says it was a golden time for Americans.

Doesn't make it true.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We already invest a huge proportion of taxes into public education and no ammount of money fixes what is culturally broken. Private schools spend much less and achieve much more.

I don't think that's fair to public education. I agree though that throwing money at education is likely not to accomplish a whole lot. But private schools are more succesful primarily because of parenting.

The issue is more about parents than it is about the schools. For the most part, while I think there is a huge discrepency in quality of education from public school to public school, most give students an opportunity to advance to college and become succesful. The problem is more with parenting. Go to a wealthy school with wealthy families and you'll likely see most kids being pushed toward college, forced to do homework, and given ample supervision over their education. Shift to a poor school and you'll see a lot of the opposite. Now this isn't the case for every family, but I think in general we have seen that trend.

The sad part is that I don't know how you can fix that. Shitty parents often make shitty kids. And unfortunately, those are the people reproducing the fastest.

[JPhillips]

One thing we could do for public schools that is all about money is maintenance and repair. Many buildings are so dilapidated that it's difficult to establish a positive learning environment.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Forty years of right-wing propaganda has worked well. Of course, those same people probably love Head Start, Medicare, school lunch, and that federal government money that keeps the lights on in many school districts.

That doesn't even get into the fact that after LBJ left office in '68, most of the funding for said Great Society programs were cut. But, 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, poverty has basically stabilized at that level. That's not a shocker has nothing else has been done and in many ways, we've moved backward.

Great Society did not start until 65 after he was re-elected at the end of 64.

All graphs I have been able to locate show that the poverty levels were sharply in decline starting in 1960. Over half of the decline occured prior to 65. This is nothing about right wing propaganda, it has to do with the statistics and reading a graph.

In 1960, the number of poor in the US was just under 40 million, by 1965, it had declined to roughly 31 million. This was a reduction in the poverty level of about 7%. From 1965 to 1970, years that LBJ heavily influenced (most of his reforms did not take effect until 65 or later), that rate declined another 4% and the number of poor numbered about 25 million (EDIT: so 66% of the decline occurred prior to Great Society). A level which it hovered around until 1978 or so.

If we look at 1969 until 1975 (essentially the 5/6 years after LBJ left office) , the poverty level remained relatively constant. I would argue it was not Great Society that lowered the poverty level but something else. If it was entirely due to Great Society, the poverty level should have rebounded as those programs were repealed.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

It's largely the same thing with larger countries like France or Germany. They have much lower poverty levels than we do and they have large, complicated economies like ours.

Also yes, those countries need less resources, but guess what, we as a country have access to far more resources. And, most of the things (easier access to higher education, single-payer health care, larger welfare programs in general, less advantages given to the rich via the tax code, etc.) are easily possible by this nation if we actually wanted too.

But I agree, the centrist to center-right Democratic Party and the right-wing Republican Party have been failures on poverty. However, the last true liberal on economics (LBJ) presided over a drop by nearly 50% in the poverty rate after the Great Society was passed. So, there ya' go.

Definitely agree with the tax code. I don't understand why it needs to be so voluminous to begin with. I'm not sure larger welfare programs would work if there were not measures to reduce fraud and abuse, coupled with incentives to move your way out of those welfare programs, in my opinion. I think education is key and it starts at the lowest grades and I would like to see that foundation being solidified first.

Would those policies of the Great Society work today though? To be honest, I do not know much of what they were, but, I do know that this is a much different world that we live in than in the mid to late 60s. Lots of things have changed in almost half a century.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

You can't look at absolute numbers. You have to look at a measure like GDP and then at the percentage of the population and compare those ratios

I'm not quite following you. If the States have over 300 million and Denmark and Sweden have a combined 15 million, just by default, the States will have a much larger number of people that are 'poor'. That's how was looking at it.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yes, there are shitty parents who are rich and great parents who are poor, but you take the same kid and put him in a rich school district or a poor school district, things will probably go better for him in the rich school district.

This is conjecture. Again, I'll use Memphis as an example, the County Schools here test much better than Memphis City Schools which spend twice as much money per student than the county does.

Parents have a much more important role in teaching a child than money. Yes, you do need a base level of funding for the school system per student, but beyond that level, parenting is much more important.