Quote (GoodOleZeus @ Mar 7 2015 05:09pm)
Probably 1954.
But what OP said is both true and false. It's unfortunate that liberal social welfare programs AND the left-wing destruction of the family, and virtual removal of the father from the family, are the primary reasons poverty has no chance of decreasing below 11 or 10%, because as we all know, it's minority poverty rates that drive the overall poverty rate, considering they constitute the majority of those living in poverty, they are also the ones who use government benefits with the purpose of living on them, and they are the ones who who don't have stable families and fathers, and the federal government is saying they don't give a shit about their family. Even if unemployment is at or near zero, or in the 3s or 4s as its been a few times, most recently 1999 or so, the poverty rate will continue to stay at 10%.
Mitt Romney was wrong. The 47% are not the problem. It's the 10%. And it's because of liberal economic and social policy.
Its sorta like in the 1800s in England, when some people in power thought "England would be so great if we took the criminal element and put them in a boat and shipped them 1/2 way around the world."
Sorta like give us your poor and tired , but if you remain poor because you've been oppressed since the day you were born -then get back on the boat?"
Ya of course its not the 47%, its the 10% that believe its the poor that are the real problem.