Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Considering 80% of millionaires are first generation its tough to say that we have a mobility gap. My question is how redistributing income and simply giving it to someone else going to give them the incentive to become wealthy? We've spent trillions of dollars on the war on poverty and the poverty rate is the same if not a little higher than when we started.

Some more info on how the wealthy aren't just sitting on their money.
How many of the "rich" work for a living

we have a mobility gap compared to other countries...if you are an apologist then you use that to point out how unfair our country is...because we all know those other countries are 'right' and should be the baseline on which all economic questions are measured.

We have taller trees than they do, that is their fault.

Go back and read it...we have an unusually low number...what is usual? talk about putting opinion on top of numbers...maybe we are the only country that does it right...I'm sure they adjusted for the age of the countries, the mix of industry etc.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

No, but if you come out of those schools and earn > $250k/year you are either working for your dad (which is his right)

Yes, it's his right, but you are also talking as if everybody starts from the same starting line, and that's bunk.

or you apparently learned something along the way and can apply it in a highly compensated field.

Yes, you did, but take a smart kid from humble beginnings and he learns the same thing. The efficacy of education is not at issue (though there are certainly other issues like designer label schools which hike salary and opportunities later in life and which have little to do with merit). Access to that education is at issue.

There are plenty of kids that are given everything in life and produce nothing themselves. There are some legacy admits in all tops schools although I hear it is less and less. And, if they are only there due to that, I doubt they'll be in our $250k subset.

You asked me what the numbers mean. They directly refute your claim. Or rather, they put the anecdotes into mathematical context -- although there are rags to riches and riches to rags stories, there are significantly fewer than in other countries. That means we are breeding an aristocracy, and that is very bad news.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

We've spent trillions of dollars on the war on poverty and the poverty rate is the same if not a little higher than when we started.

Very, very bad example for you to bring up.

The war on poverty worked and continues to work. Odd when the drops start and when the rises start, though, eh?

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Yes, it's his right, but you are also talking as if everybody starts from the same starting line, and that's bunk.




Yes, you did, but take a smart kid from humble beginnings and he learns the same thing. The efficacy of education is not at issue (though there are certainly other issues like designer label schools which hike salary and opportunities later in life and which have little to do with merit). Access to that education is at issue.




You asked me what the numbers mean to mean. To me, they directly refute your claim. Or rather, they put the anecdotes into mathematical context -- although there are rags to riches and riches to rags stories, there are significantly fewer than in other countries. That means we are breeding an aristocracy, and that is very bad news.

or those other countries breed stagnation, lack of ambition and lack of opportunity. you say the lack of mobility in other countries is a strength of theirs, I say that mobility is possible and work is the way to enact that mobility is a strength of ours ... the facebook guy isn't from one of those other countries, either is Lebron James. Our financial industry dwarfs theirs so we have more stock brokers, we have more lawyers, that is for sure...we have more doctors, we have more companies, a larger market, more movie producers, more entertainers, more computer manufacturers etc, of course mobility would be higher, and there is plenty of evidence it isn't just handed down or accumulated by luck

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Very, very bad example for you to bring up.

The war on poverty worked and continues to work. Odd when the drops start and when the rises start, though, eh?

Bad chart to bring up. You do realize that the drop in poverty was happening before the Great Society right. Unless you think that trend down was just doing to stop in the late 60's.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

After controlling for a host of parental background variables, upward mobility varied by region of origin, and is highest (in percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South Central and Mountain regions.

Kinda goes against your usual opinion of the South, doesn't it?

Maybe they just have no where to go but up. Or better yet, all those Southern Belles are making $$$$ by utilizing the phrase "Y'All Come" in a different context.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Glad to have you folks here. Maybe you can address this from earlier:

Maybe one of our right-wing colleagues can explain why giving billionaires tax breaks is so much more vital than passing health benefits for 9/11 heroes.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

or those other countries breed stagnation, lack of ambition and lack of opportunity.

Income mobility = stagnation.

War is peace.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Kinda goes against your usual opinion of the South, doesn't it?

Maybe they just have no where to go but up. Or better yet, all those Southern Belles are making $$$$ by utilizing the phrase "Y'All Come" in a different context.

I think it's industrious northerners marrying slothful southerners. The resulting children are average, but that represents a huge step up for the south.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You do realize that the drop in poverty was happening before the Great Society right.

AFDC 1935
G.I. Bill of 1944
Housing Act of 1949
Veterans’ Adjustment Act of 1952

All fought tooth and nail by economic conservatives, by the way.

You do realize there was a War on Poverty before the Great Society, right? Or do you think Ayn Rand's bloviations were exercises in time travel and prognostication?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Too flippin funny. If a Blackwater employee so much as looked crosseyed at an Iraqi, that was Bush's fault, but now these things are occurring way below the presidential level... I'm shocked - shocked - to hear that rationalization from you.

You may believe that...but I don't and never have. Bush made an emense number of horrible decisions, but presidents don't make decisions at this level.

Time to totally reinvent a bloated military that is not up to the realities of today.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You may believe that...but I don't and never have. Bush made an emense number of horrible decisions, but presidents don't make decisions at this level.

Time to totally reinvent a bloated military that is not up to the realities of today.

I think LynahFan was arguing that Bush took the heat for things like this when he was president, and I think he's right. But the solution isn't to wrongly fault both presidents for it. The solution is to acknowledge that Bush sucked balls, but in this particular instance he was not in the loop.

As somebody who voted for Obama, though, I'm still ****ed at him for things like this, albeit it makes for GREAT business.

I do not like what this administration has done in multiple areas. The truly ghastly thing is the GOP is so, by turns, mindbogglingly stupid and virulently evil, I will almost certainly have no choice but to vote for Obama again. I do not like having no choice.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

AFDC 1935
G.I. Bill of 1944
Housing Act of 1949
Veterans’ Adjustment Act of 1952

All fought tooth and nail by economic conservatives, by the way.

You do realize there was a War on Poverty before the Great Society, right? Or do you think Ayn Rand's bloviations were exercises in time travel and prognostication?

If you're going focus on those programs between 1944 and 1952 then why does your chart show the highest poverty rate in 1959 if they were so successful?

If you look at the chart fromt the Great Society programs starting in 1965 on (I would argue you'd have to look at 1967 since there was already a rapid decline in poverty happening) you see that there basically no change in overall poverty. If it were gov't programs you expect to see an downward trend over time. In fact, the strongest correlation in decreases in poverty is economic expansion. One could easily argue that if we'd taken the trillions put into these programs and invested them into the economy we'd see lower poverty rates.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Quantitative Easing explained in a way even I can pay attention to. I was not consciously aware of that whole Goldman Sachs things, though it sounds familiar.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Quantitative Easing explained in a way even I can pay attention to. I was not consciously aware of that whole Goldman Sachs things, though it sounds familiar.

I don't think they do a horrible job of explaining it or anything, but there's a few things in their explanation that don't really square with "accepted" economic theories.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I don't think they do a horrible job of explaining it or anything, but there's a few things in their explanation that don't really square with "accepted" economic theories.

Can you be more specific for your lay audience?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

If you're going focus on those programs between 1944 and 1952 then why does your chart show the highest poverty rate in 1959 if they were so successful?

Do you think this chart shows the function y = x squared maxes out at +/-2?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Can you be more specific for your lay audience?

I am the lay audience. I didn't mean to come off as some sort of expert. But I believe in that video they make deflation sound like the cat's pajamas, when there are some problems that come along with it. Isn't some low level of inflation the "ideal" that we aim for?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Haven't looked at the detailed numbers, but I wonder if a factor in the "income mobility" discussion is the fact that income/wealth in the US is so much more unevenly distributed than in other countries - we hear about this all the time, how the top x% make y% of the income, etc. Therefore, to change "quintiles" in the US, you have to change your income by a *much* greater amount - both in raw numbers and in percentage - than people do in other countries.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Very, very bad example for you to bring up.

The war on poverty worked and continues to work. Odd when the drops start and when the rises start, though, eh?

I'm a little disappointed Kepler... You act as though presidential influence hits right as they take office. I thought this whole mess we're in is Bush's fault. Funny how in 1982(ish) the rate starts going down again. In 2000 it appears the poverty rate was already on the rise when Bush took office. So, like I said, I'm disappointed in that last bit.