Staggering COVID-19 Statistic: 98% to 99% of Americans Dying are Unvaccinated

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We were quoting MLK, not his son. MLK, who is a national hero, asked us to try and forget about race when judging people.

MLK is your hero?
Just how many of his beliefs do you support?

This one, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor."
--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1968

Or this one, “ Again we have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that Capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifice. The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor – both black and white, both here and abroad.”
— The Three Evils of Society, 1967
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

MLK is your hero?
Just how many of his beliefs do you support?

This one, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor."
--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1968

Or this one, “ Again we have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that Capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifice. The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor – both black and white, both here and abroad.”
— The Three Evils of Society, 1967
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

his work on civil
rights makes him a hero.

and we’ve spent trillions and trillions on the poor since the 1960s. and don’t have much reduction in puberty to show for it, i might add.

ming wanted us to ignore race. obviously you disagree. that’s your right. just be honest and i afraid and admit it, you want to focus intently on race.

economic status is more important. i don’t mind funding effective programs to help poor people. but not by race. a wealthy black family doesn’t need my help more than a poor white family. do you disagree with that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and we’ve spent trillions and trillions on the poor since the 1960s. and don’t have much reduction in puberty to show for it, i might add.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, this is gold, and I don’t want to lose it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Sorry, this is gold, and I don’t want to lose it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s a good typo.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and we’ve spent trillions and trillions on the poor since the 1960s. and don’t have much reduction in puberty to show for it, i might add.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Sorry, this is gold, and I don’t want to lose it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporar...ailure-report/


And from a different article.
Earlier this month, the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) declared that the War on Poverty launched by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 is “largely over and a success.” Although it is premature to declare an outright and absolute victory, it’s great that policymakers at the highest level of government recognize that our social safety net programs are working.

But if we are to continue to reduce hardship and promote mobility from poverty through access to good jobs, work and other means, we have to understand the nature of poverty today. It's important that we draw the right lessons from the past so we don’t underestimate our current challenges and cede our hard-won progress in the War on Poverty.

Let’s start with the good news in the CEA report: material well-being in the United States has improved considerably. The poverty rate has also declined over the last few decades, although you wouldn’t know it if you looked just at the official poverty rate, which has not fluctuated greatly since the 1960s, ranging from 10 to 15 percent.

The official poverty rate draws a threshold based on food consumption patterns from the 1950s and considers only pretax cash income as available resources. Consequently, the official poverty rate understates both the needs of today’s families and the resources available to them. In fact, two of our largest sources of support to low-income families—the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—don’t count in our official poverty measure.

Recognizing the limitations of the official poverty measure, the Census Bureau developed a supplemental poverty measure (SPM) in 2009 that better captures needs and resources.

When researchers extended the SPM back in time, they found that the poverty rate dropped from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012 and to about 14 percent in 2016, more accurately capturing poverty’s downward trend than does the official poverty measure. In addition, without SNAP and refundable tax credits, the poverty rate would have been 3.7 percentage points higher than it was in 2016. Expansions of the EITC and SNAP have alleviated poverty in ways the SPM reflects and the official poverty measure misses.

Limitations of a consumption-based poverty rate
The “too good to be true” news from the CEA is that the poverty rate declined from 30 percent in 1960 to just 3 percent in 2016 when applying a “consumption-based” poverty measure, which measures what a family consumes instead of how much income it earns. A consumption-based poverty measure has some merit. After all, a family with no income but substantial assets would be considered “income poor” but could be consuming at comfortable levels.

Because there is no official measure of consumption-based poverty, the CEA relies on the work of economists Bruce Meyer and James Sullivan. To develop a consumption-based poverty rate, Meyer and Sullivan need accurate data on consumption and a meaningful standard for how much a family needs to consume to have a minimally adequate standard of living. Some scholars have expressed concerns about the data Meyer and Sullivan use to construct their consumption-based poverty rate.

Those concerns aside, the consumption-based poverty rate from Meyer and Sullivan that the CEA cites is indexed to 1980, an arbitrary threshold that might understate the hardship and need families experience today. Using this measure allows the CEA to suggest that poverty isn’t much a problem in the US today.

Drawing a meaningful threshold for consumption-based poverty is a challenge—for example, when the authors equate the consumption and official poverty rates in 2015 and then apply their techniques backward, they find that nearly 40 percent of Americans were poor in 1980, and nearly 60 percent were poor in 1960. Those levels are too high to be a meaningful indication of overall hardship in those years. Similarly, the 3 percent figure touted by the CEA for 2016 is too low.

Further, crossing a given consumption threshold does not mean you have the power and control over your resources and life to not be “poor.” Exposing yourself or your children to a potentially abusive situation just to have a roof over your head or trading sex for food or income might keep you out of consumption poverty, but you are still poor.

The role of antipoverty programs
Although it’s too soon to declare the War on Poverty over, it is important to recognize the progress we have made and the important role our antipoverty programs such as SNAP and EITC have played in that success. Use of a consumption-based poverty measure should neither lead to a misguided belief that the War on Poverty has been won nor justify making major changes—however well intentioned—to safety net programs that risk cutting people off from the very programs that have kept them out of poverty.

Well-designed reforms that help recipients overcome their barriers to work, supplement and support their efforts to work, and recognize that some recipients will be limited in the amount and type of work they can do can help us make even more progress against poverty.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporar...ailure-report/


And from a different article.
Earlier this month, the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) declared that the War on Poverty launched by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 is “largely over and a success.” Although it is premature to declare an outright and absolute victory, it’s great that policymakers at the highest level of government recognize that our social safety net programs are working.

But if we are to continue to reduce hardship and promote mobility from poverty through access to good jobs, work and other means, we have to understand the nature of poverty today. It's important that we draw the right lessons from the past so we don’t underestimate our current challenges and cede our hard-won progress in the War on Poverty.

Let’s start with the good news in the CEA report: material well-being in the United States has improved considerably. The poverty rate has also declined over the last few decades, although you wouldn’t know it if you looked just at the official poverty rate, which has not fluctuated greatly since the 1960s, ranging from 10 to 15 percent.

The official poverty rate draws a threshold based on food consumption patterns from the 1950s and considers only pretax cash income as available resources. Consequently, the official poverty rate understates both the needs of today’s families and the resources available to them. In fact, two of our largest sources of support to low-income families—the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—don’t count in our official poverty measure.

Recognizing the limitations of the official poverty measure, the Census Bureau developed a supplemental poverty measure (SPM) in 2009 that better captures needs and resources.

When researchers extended the SPM back in time, they found that the poverty rate dropped from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012 and to about 14 percent in 2016, more accurately capturing poverty’s downward trend than does the official poverty measure. In addition, without SNAP and refundable tax credits, the poverty rate would have been 3.7 percentage points higher than it was in 2016. Expansions of the EITC and SNAP have alleviated poverty in ways the SPM reflects and the official poverty measure misses.

Limitations of a consumption-based poverty rate
The “too good to be true” news from the CEA is that the poverty rate declined from 30 percent in 1960 to just 3 percent in 2016 when applying a “consumption-based” poverty measure, which measures what a family consumes instead of how much income it earns. A consumption-based poverty measure has some merit. After all, a family with no income but substantial assets would be considered “income poor” but could be consuming at comfortable levels.

Because there is no official measure of consumption-based poverty, the CEA relies on the work of economists Bruce Meyer and James Sullivan. To develop a consumption-based poverty rate, Meyer and Sullivan need accurate data on consumption and a meaningful standard for how much a family needs to consume to have a minimally adequate standard of living. Some scholars have expressed concerns about the data Meyer and Sullivan use to construct their consumption-based poverty rate.

Those concerns aside, the consumption-based poverty rate from Meyer and Sullivan that the CEA cites is indexed to 1980, an arbitrary threshold that might understate the hardship and need families experience today. Using this measure allows the CEA to suggest that poverty isn’t much a problem in the US today.

Drawing a meaningful threshold for consumption-based poverty is a challenge—for example, when the authors equate the consumption and official poverty rates in 2015 and then apply their techniques backward, they find that nearly 40 percent of Americans were poor in 1980, and nearly 60 percent were poor in 1960. Those levels are too high to be a meaningful indication of overall hardship in those years. Similarly, the 3 percent figure touted by the CEA for 2016 is too low.

Further, crossing a given consumption threshold does not mean you have the power and control over your resources and life to not be “poor.” Exposing yourself or your children to a potentially abusive situation just to have a roof over your head or trading sex for food or income might keep you out of consumption poverty, but you are still poor.

The role of antipoverty programs
Although it’s too soon to declare the War on Poverty over, it is important to recognize the progress we have made and the important role our antipoverty programs such as SNAP and EITC have played in that success. Use of a consumption-based poverty measure should neither lead to a misguided belief that the War on Poverty has been won nor justify making major changes—however well intentioned—to safety net programs that risk cutting people off from the very programs that have kept them out of poverty.

Well-designed reforms that help recipients overcome their barriers to work, supplement and support their efforts to work, and recognize that some recipients will be limited in the amount and type of work they can do can help us make even more progress against poverty.

“the war on poverty is over and a success.”

Paul, i can find someone who will
write that i am the spitting image of Brad Pitt and post it. That doesn’t make it so.

You’re waaay too smart to believe that. Take a drive through bridgeport or hartford, tell
me we successfully won the war on poverty. Ask any public schoolteacher in any urban school if poverty has been defeated.

I’ve lived in CT my whole life. The cities are far worse today, then when i was a kid. And they keep getting worse. They keep getting worse, because of fatherlessness and culture. Lack of money has almost nothing to do with it. You don't fix a broken culture by mailing out bigger and bigger welfare checks.

If I post an article from someone saying that Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg was a success, that doesn’t make it so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1220972]

“the war on poverty is over and a success.”


without SNAP and refundable tax credits, the poverty rate would have been 3.7 percentage points higher than it was in 2016. Expansions of the EITC and SNAP have alleviated poverty in ways the SPM reflects and the official poverty measure misses.....



if solving poverty is measured by the making people more and more reliant on government handouts and services in order to escape poverty and less reliant on themselves....

then I guess you could consider the left's war on poverty a success....great job!

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

“the war on poverty is over and a success.”

Paul, i can find someone who will
write that i am the spitting image of Brad Pitt and post it. That doesn’t make it so.

You’re waaay too smart to believe that. Take a drive through bridgeport or hartford, tell
me we successfully won the war on poverty. Ask any public schoolteacher in any urban school if poverty has been defeated.No One said it was "defeated". You said a "reduction".


I’ve lived in CT my whole life. The cities are far worse today, then when i was a kid. And they keep getting worse. They keep getting worse, because of fatherlessness and culture. Lack of money has almost nothing to do with it. You don't fix a broken culture by mailing out bigger and bigger welfare checks.

If I post an article from someone saying that Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg was a success, that doesn’t make it so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Poor People's lives are much better now than they were in the 60s - not good, but better.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Poor People's lives are much better now than they were in the 60s - not good, but better.

"No One said it was "defeated"

You quoted this..."the War on Poverty launched by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 is “largely over and a success.” Maybe I misinterpreted that, fair enough.

"Poor People's lives are much better now than they were in the 60s - not good, but better."

Not a chance. Sure, you can play with what defines "poverty" and come up with a statistic that shows that fewer people are below it, and maybe (hopefully) things like life expectancy are better for poor people today than they were 50 years ago. And maybe "poor people" today are more likely to have air conditioning, cell phones, material things I guess. And hopefully more have access to healthcare.

But again, I lived just outside of New Haven for decades, and worked in downtown Hartford for almost 15 years. Today, those places look like they can't be in America, you'd swear you were in Haiti or Somalia.

I don't think you'd find a single public schoolteacjher who has spent decades in a big city, who'd say that the socioeconomics of their students is better today than 35 years ago.

The quality of life enjoyed by our poorest children, will move in almost exact correlation with the rates of fatherlessness in those communities. As fatherlessness has exploded, so has the socioeconomic quality of life deteriorated.

Id actually love to see a poll done by all the teachers in the biggest cities who have bene there for decades, to comment on whether they see improvements or deterioration.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Poor People's lives are much better now than they were in the 60s - not good, but better.

this is correct, we have color tv instead of black and white

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

his work on civil
rights makes him a hero.

and we’ve spent trillions and trillions on the poor since the 1960s. and don’t have much reduction in puberty to show for it, i might add.

ming wanted us to ignore race. obviously you disagree. that’s your right. just be honest and i afraid and admit it, you want to focus intently on race.

economic status is more important. i don’t mind funding effective programs to help poor people. but not by race. a wealthy black family doesn’t need my help more than a poor white family. do you disagree with that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’ve obviously never read MLKs I had a dream speech or you wouldn’t quote just part of one sentence.

https://www.npr.org/2010/01/18/12270...n-its-entirety
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device