wahlins said: McCallum said: You could be right but do not believe since the start of the Great Society and the War on Poverty that the poverty rate has fallen. But then again if I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
I believe this graph shows that the Great Society has had a lasting influence over the % of Americans experiencing poverty and that the Republicans were firmly in control in the years leading up to the Great Recession.
[img">http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll284/scottcgcs/povertytimelinewithleadersB.jpg[/img">
I appreciate the data, Scott. Let me give a few thoughts:
1) Number in poverty data is irrelevant and misleading -- its only used to stoke emotion
% in poverty is only data needed
2) All increases in poverty (except for one) occur when democrats control two of the three criteria
at the bottom of the graph: house, senate, predident
3) Steepest increases in poverty occur when democrats control senate and house
Perhaps a more important point is whether this data is important at all. Poverty is certainly an emotional issue, but, as we learned when the 2010 poverty numbers were releaed not too long ago, poverty is merely a definition, not an indicator of standard of living. The Census Bureau poverty threshold also excludes transfer payments and government assistance, such as unemployment, welfare, medicare and medicaid, and tax credits in excess of tax liability (getting back more than you paid in). The Census Bureau stated that although the poverty threshold for a family of four in the US in 2010 was $22,314; the average income of those families (government aid + income) was $40,451; which elevated the income of the average poverty family over those who were not in poverty.