U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-24-2018, 04:03 AM
 
1,662 posts, read 1,120,470 times
Reputation: 3875

Advertisements

I was in 5th grade when Kennedy was killed. I recall that from the time of the assassination LBJ was among the list of people and organizations that were suspected of arranging to have Kennedy killed. Some other suspects were the Chicago Mafia, the KGB, Castro, the FBI and the CIA.

The Warren Commission ruled that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone but that didn't stop people from suspecting otherwise. Who really killed Kennedy is a question that has been debated for years.

I used to get the History channel and in the 80s & 90s it seemed as if half the shows were about the JFK and the other half were about Hitler.

OP, did you ever hear the name Jack Ruby?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-24-2018, 06:57 AM
 
12,487 posts, read 15,569,075 times
Reputation: 8367
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgsing View Post
And there were some of us including myself who got an all expenses paid trip to South East Asia.
That's right. Although LBJ supporters credit him for the popular Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps; they don't want to remember how he poured millions of dollars, and men, into a war that was s lost cause. And also forget how he dropped his reelection campaign early on because his war was unpopular.

Last edited by pvande55; 03-24-2018 at 07:04 AM.. Reason: Two words
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2018, 07:32 AM
 
5,986 posts, read 2,629,907 times
Reputation: 18060
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I don't call that a bust. I call it a 25% reduction in poverty. Actually, I disagree with your numbers. The table appears to show a decline in the poverty rate from about 22% in 1963 to about 12% after 1965. That's about 50%. The poverty rate fluctuates over time with more people being in poverty during republican administrations and recessions. In 2000, at the end of the Clinton Presidency it dropped over four percentage points to about 11%.

Did anyone really think any President's policies would end all poverty? That would be a real pipe dream. There are many reasons people are poor. They range from age, to illness, to lack of education, to handicap, to even the geographic area they live in. It was to Johnson's credit that he obtained about a 50% decrease in poverty with the help of the War on Poverty.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Povert...ed_States..PNG
Given that his War on Poverty programs didn't come into existence until 1966, those drops in poverty came before those programs came into being. And the gains after that were, at best, momentary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2018, 07:43 AM
 
Location: North Carolina
3,216 posts, read 2,212,540 times
Reputation: 6587
It's ironic that President LBJ was from Texas, which typically isn't associated with the kinds of policies he promoted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2018, 07:51 AM
 
5,114 posts, read 4,730,146 times
Reputation: 4380
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
Given that his War on Poverty programs didn't come into existence until 1966...
August 1964 - Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Community Action Program, Job Corps, Volunteers in Service to America)
August 1964 - Food Stamp Act of 1964
July 1965 - Social Security Act of 1965 (Medicare and Medicaid)

One might quibble that it took until 1966 for Medicare and Medicaid to kick in, but the other programs were in place prior to 1966.

Quote:
those drops in poverty came before those programs came into being. And the gains after that were, at best, momentary.
The poverty rate had been dropping since 1959, but the rate eventually reached down to about 11% in 1973. It might appear to the casual observer that the LBJ Great Society programs weren't working after than, but one must take into consideration the 1973 recession, the early 1980's recessions, and the Reagan administration's attempts to curtail social spending during the 1980's. The poverty rate bobbled between roughly 13% and 15% during Reagan and Bush I, but fell from 15% at the end of Bush I's term to 11% at the end of Clinton's term.

IMO, the reason why we don't see a return to a 20%+ poverty rate is due to the continued existence and popularity of two of LBJ's welfare programs - Medicare and Medicaid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2018, 08:14 AM
 
5,986 posts, read 2,629,907 times
Reputation: 18060
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
August 1964 - Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Community Action Program, Job Corps, Volunteers in Service to America)
August 1964 - Food Stamp Act of 1964
July 1965 - Social Security Act of 1965 (Medicare and Medicaid)

One might quibble that it took until 1966 for Medicare and Medicaid to kick in, but the other programs were in place prior to 1966.



The poverty rate had been dropping since 1959, but the rate eventually reached down to about 11% in 1973. It might appear to the casual observer that the LBJ Great Society programs weren't working after than, but one must take into consideration the 1973 recession, the early 1980's recessions, and the Reagan administration's attempts to curtail social spending during the 1980's. The poverty rate bobbled between roughly 13% and 15% during Reagan and Bush I, but fell from 15% at the end of Bush I's term to 11% at the end of Clinton's term.

IMO, the reason why we don't see a return to a 20%+ poverty rate is due to the continued existence and popularity of two of LBJ's welfare programs - Medicare and Medicaid.
It is hardly a quibble. It is one thing to enact legislation. It is another thing entirely for those programs to actually take effect. Immense government agencies do not spring into existence overnight. It's not as if LBJ signed those agencies into law one day and, for example, food stamps started being printed the next.

As far as the faltering economy of the 1970s is concerned, I would offer that demonstrates the ineffectiveness of those programs, as well as the gradual drag that increased spending had on the economy. After all, from 1966 to 1976, the percentage of GDP dedicated to government spending rose 25%.

Meanwhile, your supposition about what the poverty rates would be without Medicare and Medicaid is sheer speculation. It says a great deal that, prior to Medicare and Medicaid coming into existence, healthcare comprised roughly 5-6% of the GDP. Today it is close to 20%. Many economists see Medicare and Medicaid as the culprits, a classic case of the Law of Unintended Consequences in action:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.df160f20fa80
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2018, 08:46 AM
 
9,532 posts, read 9,577,012 times
Reputation: 30106
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
Given that his War on Poverty programs didn't come into existence until 1966, those drops in poverty came before those programs came into being. And the gains after that were, at best, momentary.
But that's phony too. One of the reasons the economy boomed during the 1960's were because of LBJ's policies. More government spending contributes to GDP and greater GDP growth reduces unemployment.

I would say the combination of the Great Society and economic growth (brought about by Johnson) reduced poverty to around 12%. Than later recessions and republican policies increased it

What I seem to hear is that because poverty was not totally eradicated that the "Great Society was a failure". That's nonsense and sets up a false dichotomy. We don't need to choose between doing nothing to eradicate poverty and eliminating 100% of it. We can put programs in place that give the majority of those in poverty the opportunity to climb out of that hole. That's essentially what the Great Society did. Some grabbed hold of the rope extended to them and climbed out. Others either did not or were not able too.

This is actually a sort of historical revisionism by some conservative groups. If they have their way, you'll end up seeing poverty rates back in the mid-twenty percent range.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2018, 09:48 AM
 
5,986 posts, read 2,629,907 times
Reputation: 18060
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
But that's phony too. One of the reasons the economy boomed during the 1960's were because of LBJ's policies. More government spending contributes to GDP and greater GDP growth reduces unemployment.

I would say the combination of the Great Society and economic growth (brought about by Johnson) reduced poverty to around 12%. Than later recessions and republican policies increased it

What I seem to hear is that because poverty was not totally eradicated that the "Great Society was a failure". That's nonsense and sets up a false dichotomy. We don't need to choose between doing nothing to eradicate poverty and eliminating 100% of it. We can put programs in place that give the majority of those in poverty the opportunity to climb out of that hole. That's essentially what the Great Society did. Some grabbed hold of the rope extended to them and climbed out. Others either did not or were not able too.

This is actually a sort of historical revisionism by some conservative groups. If they have their way, you'll end up seeing poverty rates back in the mid-twenty percent range.
If you don't like the conversation, change the subject, correct? I see you ignored my point about how Medicare and Medicaid might have accelerated healthcare costs rather than arrest them. Do yourself a kindness and spend a couple of hours with a hospital administrator as he or she discusses the huge regulatory hoops that have to be leapt through in order to comply with either program.

I'm not a conservative. Nor am I a liberal. However, any student of the period should be aware how the tax cuts proposed by Kennedy (And, to his credit, signed into law by LBJ in early 1964) had a profound effect on the economy. The tax rates were cut across the board with the top tax rate reduced from 90% to 71%, as well as a 5% drop in corporate tax rates.

As for the false dichotomy argument on your part, I would offer that you are in the wrong. Especially given the massive government investment that the War On Poverty entailed, the returns for such a program were both small and temporary. We essentially ratcheted up government's share of GDP by three percentage points in order to temporarily reduce poverty 1-2%. And as for the argument that somehow the GOP is gleefully rubbing its hands together in anticipation that poverty rates will climb back up into the mid-20s, I think you really need a reality check. And I haven't voted Republican in the past four elections.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2018, 10:27 AM
 
5,114 posts, read 4,730,146 times
Reputation: 4380
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
It is hardly a quibble. It is one thing to enact legislation. It is another thing entirely for those programs to actually take effect. Immense government agencies do not spring into existence overnight. It's not as if LBJ signed those agencies into law one day and, for example, food stamps started being printed the next.
Let's first establish that you set the goal line at the end of 1966, December 31st to be precise. Let's also agree that the first two War on Poverty bills were passed into law no later than August 1964. Kind of hard to dispute either point.

Do you really expect us to believe that the federal government took 28 months for them to act upon those laws?

Quote:
As far as the faltering economy of the 1970s is concerned, I would offer that demonstrates the ineffectiveness of those programs, as well as the gradual drag that increased spending had on the economy. After all, from 1966 to 1976, the percentage of GDP dedicated to government spending rose 25%.
It is specious to claim that because welfare programs don't prevent economic downturns those programs are ineffective.

As for your observation of government spending as a percent of GDP rising during an economic downturn, surely you must realize that if government spending was one trillion dollars and non-government spending was four trillion dollars, for a GDP of five trillion dollars, then if the non-government spending fell to four and a half trillion dollars during a recession while government spending remained the same, then the government's share of GDP must necessarily rise, without any actual increase in governmental spending. That's just how math works.

You get that, don't you?

As for any claim that welfare spending increases during economic downturns - well, yes, that's the purpose of said spending, to keep people from being hit too hard by the recessions.

Quote:
Meanwhile, your supposition about what the poverty rates would be without Medicare and Medicaid is sheer speculation.
No, prior to things like Medicare and Medicaid, a large portion of the poor in this country were comprised of the elderly, due to the high cost of their health care in relation to their assets and their low retirement incomes.

Quote:
It says a great deal that, prior to Medicare and Medicaid coming into existence, healthcare comprised roughly 5-6% of the GDP. Today it is close to 20%.
Yes, the nation is now older. There are more people older than 65 now than in 1966. It stands to reason that spending would rise for those welfare programs. The alternative would be that people over 65 would have no health insurance, no health care, and would die, and "decrease the surplus population".

Quote:
Many economists see Medicare and Medicaid as the culprits, a classic case of the Law of Unintended Consequences in action:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.df160f20fa80
And not only have you shifted the topic, proving that you've lost the discussion, you're also leaning into a current political topic.

There's a Politics and Other Controversies sub-forum. If you must continue on, please carry on there, not here in the History Forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2018, 10:29 AM
 
Location: SC
8,796 posts, read 5,896,590 times
Reputation: 12847
LBJ was president over 50 years ago, there is no real reason for him to come up in most conversations or articles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top