Public Housing Projects & Boston

The War on Poverty could have been won if money hadn't been diverted to the pointless war against Vietnam.
 
Ron Newman said:
The War on Poverty could have been won if money hadn't been diverted to the pointless war against Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Ron, you don't really believe that, do you? The Great Society programs have not decreased the number of Americans living in poverty -- the percentage of children living in poverty was 20.7% in 1965 (the first year of the War on Poverty) and in 2010 it was 19.8%. Moreover, when you add to those living in poverty the number of people living above the poverty line but deriving a significant portion of their income from government programs, the percentage of financially self-insufficient people has only increased.

In addition to the other perverse incentives they created, the Great Society programs have contributed greatly to the destruction of the family and have lead to acceptance of, economic incentivization of, and increase in the number of single-parent households thanks to the battery of freebies given to single mothers (cash handouts, Medicaid, free housing, food stamps). In 1965, approximately 7% of children were born to single-parent households. Today, that number is 40.6%.

Those broken homes are the greatest driver of children living in poverty there is. Whereas 6.4% of children living in two-parent households are in poverty, 36.5% of children in single-parent households are in poverty. That difference remains when adjusting for education and race.

We've spent trillions of dollars on the Great Society programs since 1965. In return, we have no change in the number of people living in poverty, the creation of a large class of people above the poverty line but dependent on government programs, and the destruction of the family among the poor.

Vietnam cost $650B in today's dollars. I am not saying that war was worth fighting, but had we put an additional $650B on top of the trillions that have been sucked into the Great Society programs since 1965, the only impact would probably be to have more children born into poverty in single-parent households and more single-parent households dependent on government programs.
 
itchy said:
Ron, you don't really believe that, do you? The Great Society programs have not decreased the number of Americans living in poverty -- the percentage of children living in poverty was 20.7% in 1965 (the first year of the War on Poverty) and in 2010 it was 19.8%. Moreover, when you add to those living in poverty the number of people living above the poverty line but deriving a significant portion of their income from government programs, the percentage of financially self-insufficient people has only increased.

In addition to the other perverse incentives they created, the Great Society programs have contributed greatly to the destruction of the family and have lead to acceptance of, economic incentivization of, and increase in the number of single-parent households thanks to the battery of freebies given to single mothers (cash handouts, Medicaid, free housing, food stamps). In 1965, approximately 7% of children were born to single-parent households. Today, that number is 40.6%.

Those broken homes are the greatest driver of children living in poverty there is. Whereas 6.4% of children living in two-parent households are in poverty, 36.5% of children in single-parent households are in poverty. That difference remains when adjusting for education and race.

We've spent trillions of dollars on the Great Society programs since 1965. In return, we have no change in the number of people living in poverty, the creation of a large class of people above the poverty line but dependent on government programs, and the destruction of the family among the poor.

Vietnam cost $650B in today's dollars. I am not saying that war was worth fighting, but had we put an additional $650B on top of the trillions that have been sucked into the Great Society programs since 1965, the only impact would probably be to have more children born into poverty in single-parent households and more single-parent households dependent on government programs.
Click to expand...

Please stop trying to confuse with the facts.
 
itchy said:
Ron, you don't really believe that, do you? The Great Society programs have not decreased the number of Americans living in poverty -- the percentage of children living in poverty was 20.7% in 1965 (the first year of the War on Poverty) and in 2010 it was 19.8%. Moreover, when you add to those living in poverty the number of people living above the poverty line but deriving a significant portion of their income from government programs, the percentage of financially self-insufficient people has only increased.

In addition to the other perverse incentives they created, the Great Society programs have contributed greatly to the destruction of the family and have lead to acceptance of, economic incentivization of, and increase in the number of single-parent households thanks to the battery of freebies given to single mothers (cash handouts, Medicaid, free housing, food stamps). In 1965, approximately 7% of children were born to single-parent households. Today, that number is 40.6%.

Those broken homes are the greatest driver of children living in poverty there is. Whereas 6.4% of children living in two-parent households are in poverty, 36.5% of children in single-parent households are in poverty. That difference remains when adjusting for education and race.

We've spent trillions of dollars on the Great Society programs since 1965. In return, we have no change in the number of people living in poverty, the creation of a large class of people above the poverty line but dependent on government programs, and the destruction of the family among the poor.

Vietnam cost $650B in today's dollars. I am not saying that war was worth fighting, but had we put an additional $650B on top of the trillions that have been sucked into the Great Society programs since 1965, the only impact would probably be to have more children born into poverty in single-parent households and more single-parent households dependent on government programs.
Click to expand...

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
 
Ron Newman said:
The War on Poverty could have been won if money hadn't been diverted to the pointless war against Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Ron -- Au contraire mes amis -- The War in Vietnam could have been won earlier and many lives saved -- had LBJ not gotten diverted from fighting to win military in S.E. Asia into a pointless waste of our resources at home -- aka the War on Poverty

Note: that we did eventually win the War in Vietnam as can be seen in a thriving "capitalist" Vietnam of today

There is no indication that we will eventually win the War on Poverty - despite the expenditure of more than $10T

PS: -- Note that we are talking US-style definition of poverty (also used in the EU and other OECD countries) -- but this is not REAL POVERTY

REAL POVERTY on a global scale means subsisting on less than 1$ per day. Globally there are more than 2B people doing that -- including over 800 M just in India (Indian gov't statement).

However On this global scale of poverty -- No one in the US is poor -- unless they chose to be. Similarly on a global scale there is no air or water pollution in the US.
 
Last edited:
whighlander said:
Ron -- Au contraire mes amis -- The War in Vietnam could have been won earlier and many lives saved -- had LBJ not gotten diverted from fighting to win military in S.E. Asia into a pointless waste of our resources at home -- aka the War on Poverty

Note: that we did eventually win the War in Vietnam as can be seen in a thriving "capitalist" Vietnam of today
Click to expand...

If anyone wants to respond to this ridiculous quote please do so in another thread.
 
Here's a good reading list on the subject :


  • Bauman, John F., Roger Biles, and Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. From Tenements to the Taylor Homes: In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth-Century America. Pennsylvania State University Press. 2000.
  • Hays, R. Allen. The Federal Government and Urban Housing. State University of New York Press, 1985; 2nd ed., 1995/2003.
  • Hunt, D. Bradford. Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Public Housing in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
  • von Hoffman, Alexander. House by House, Block by Block: The Rebirth of America's Urban Neighborhoods. Oxford University Press, 2004.
TL;DR Version: underfunded agencies generally fail no matter how good or bad the idea underpinning them is.
 
Kahta said:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
Click to expand...

Kahta -- don't forget the "free cell phone with 200 free minutes per month' -- however you need to be the receipient of some Federal hand-out in order to qualify for the Free Cell Phone" -- not yet a free Iphone or Android however

I would expect an announcement of "Free NFL/NBA cable channel" anyday now since this is an election year of some significance and the current administration is deparately trying to increase the percentage of people collecting from the Feds to that magic 50.000001 %
 
This being poor thing sure sounds like a sweet gig. We should all quit our jobs and jump on this bandwagon.

Whadda says guys? You in?

No takers, huh?
Hmm....
 
statler said:
This being poor thing sure sounds like a sweet gig. We should all quit our jobs and jump on this bandwagon.

Whadda says guys? You in?

No takers, huh?
Hmm....
Click to expand...

Stat -- just perhaps the readers, lurkers and posters to this forum are not a representative sample of the total US population

Unfortunately, for a number of reasons including the recent recession, global sourcing of commondity production, etc. -- the number of people on public assistance of any form are at an altime high both in terms of absolute numbers and more disturbingly %

What still remains to be seen is what happens in the next few years as the econmy begins to recover from the "Great Recession" and begins to create net new jobs:
1) will the % of people on assistance return to the average since the beginning of the War on Poverty
2) or will become Greece with ever increasing dependance on a "Fed Check" followed by an inevitable economic collapse -- as there is no country in the world remotely able to "Bail out the US' as Germany is doing for Greece
 
I'm not sure what mentioning the "War on Poverty" in a modern context is supposed to mean.
 
underground said:
I'm not sure what mentioning the "War on Poverty" in a modern context is supposed to mean.
Click to expand...

Underg -- the War on Poverty has been and is:
a) a large and growing hole in the U.S. economy
b) a process destroying the traditonal family
c) an opportunity for the "inteligencia" to exercise control of the rest of the public
d) lost
e) well meaning in intent but not so much in implementation
f) the beginning of a Euro-style welfare state
g) all of the above

The answer in the "modern context" is [g] all of the above
Trillions of $ have been poured into it and the primary beneficiaries are the well-educated consultants, bureaucrats, NGO's and others who are designing, implementing and studying the programs

This is to a large extent why the DC metro area has one of the lowest unemployment rates and some of the highest per capita education attainment in the US

PS:
a lot of local inteligentcia have benfiited as well
who hasn't benefited -- the typical "intended beneficiary" and whole lot of others whose day to day existence is now monitoried and controlled from DC

PPS: the answer to your specific question is that the average has to be over the past 30+ years (e.g. Post the onset of the war on Poverty) as without a complete restructuring of the Federal Gov't we will never get back to the pre-LBJ days-rates for government dependancy
 
Last edited:
You want to cite any actual research to back that up? And to answer your next question, no, Heritage Foundation, Cato, etc. don't count as actual research.
 
underground said:
You want to cite any actual research to back that up? And to answer your next question, no, Heritage Foundation, Cato, etc. don't count as actual research.
Click to expand...

Uground --I happen to know a bit about research on a variety of topics -- having been the recipient of a number of awards for the quality of my research in a number of fields, as well as reviewing and selecting papers produced by others. Here are some generic observations about so-called social science topics:

1) These kind of things aren't really amenable to anything other than a battle of statistics
2) fundamental problem is that the statistics are always in both the eye of the beholder and the eye of the provider
3) specifically -- rarely do you get access to unadulterated / un-adjusted raw data along with the methodology for collecting such for things such as unemployment, gdp, people collecting a check from the Feds, temperature in Sheboygan Wisconsin in February, etc., -- so you do have to depend on someone else be it the government, some think tank or some professor
4) all possessors, processors, custodians, etc. of the data have their own hidden or not-so hidden agendas -- especially if their "Meal ticket" is involved
5) There are plenty of statistics available from the executive or congressional sources -- see [2, 3, 4] about the quality of the data

But there is one incontrovertible facts:
1] Washington DC metro area is one of the most prosperous and growing cities in the US -- post the 1960's
2] very little of the private sector economy is located in the DC metro
3] The DC metro produces nothing but hot air and paper -- well ok some govt web sites and probably a PDF or two million

One of the easiest ways to get a feel for all the above is to read a book by Thomas Sowell such as:

2010. Intellectuals and Society. Basic Books. pp. 416. ISBN 978-0465019489.
2007. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy (3rd edition ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Perseus Books Group. ISBN 978-0465002603. OCLC 76897806.
2004. Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. pp. 256. ISBN 978-0300107753.
1995. Race and Culture: A World View. Description & chapter previews. ISBN 0-465-06796-4
1987. A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. William Morrow, ISBN 0-688-06912-6
1975. Race and Economics. David McKay Company Inc, ISBN 0-679-30262-X
1972. Say's Law, An Historical Analysis. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04166-0
 
If you want to talk about fudging the numbers, you should probably cite a less controversial person. Sowell isn't exactly a non-aligned figure politically.
 
Last edited:
underground said:
If you want to talk about fudging the numbers, you should probably cite a less controversial person. Sowell isn't exactly a non-aligned figure politically.
Click to expand...

Uground -- No -- that's my point -- No one who bothers to do the digging that he's done can be impartial

I don't know of anyone who digs through that kind of flotsam and jetsam as a means of relaxation after a tough day on a trapeze wire

if you are going to do the detailed quality of digging work for which he is acknowledged to do -- you need to have a reason -- typically beyond mere curiosity -- most commonly to support your position on the matter in question

Unfortunately, climate, weather, economics, medicine -- can never be real science in that all you can do is collect statistics -- no true experiment is possible as there is always the caveat of "all other things being equal" -- but of course they aren't and indeed can not be

Heraclitus of Ephesus: " You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you. "

So would the county be as screwed-up as it is if Kennedy had finished his otherwise undistinguished term and been defeated in 1964 -- we will never know -- although I'm sure each of us has his / her own opinions and will hold to those opinions like a dog to bone soaked in bacon fat
 
Actually there are tons of people who are impartial. They just aren't extremist ideologues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top