Zero Powers wrote:
>
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> >
> >Zero Powers wrote:
> > >
> > > >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> > > >
> > > >Zero Powers wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Sure, there were no poor people prior to the New Deal, right?
> > >
> > > >Actually, there were more poor people in 1970, 1980, and 1990 than in
> > > >1920, 1940, and 1950. Welfare breeds poverty.
> > >
> > > You got refs for that statistic?
> > >
> >
> >http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/3697.htm
> >http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/6097rf.htm
> >http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/6090_ch2.htm
> >
> >Do I win?
>
> Not yet. Since these statistics only go back to '36 they have no bearing
> whatever on the number of poor people *before* the New Deal. And besides
> these stats only reflect the number of people on *welfare*, nothing about
> the number of working poor. You don't have to be on welfare to be poor, you
> know.
True, but considering that the poverty rate is considered to be the same
for all geographic regions, IMHO a significant error on the part of the
feds, the variance in the welfare rate is a better indicator of true
poverty, as in indicates those who are truly poor, rather than those who
are hard working, have a life, but don't meet some federal official's
idea of a standard of living. For example, I have a much better real
standard of living here in NH than I would living in Massachusetts or
California making the same money. A person making $15,000.00 in
appalachia would not be 'poor' by comparison to others as easily as a
person making $15,000.00 in, say, Boston.
As for the data only going back to '36: that was the heart of the
Depression. THe 20's could only have been better. According to the
press, there were a lot more poor people in 1936 than in 1926.
>
> I will grant you this: from '60 to '95 the Percentage of Total U.S.
> Population receiving temporary welfare has risen rather steadily.
>
Thank you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:30 MDT