Beyond the steady increase in real disposable personal income per capita (there's a mouthful), there's a lot of other great stuff in this country that we've acquired and developed by leveraging our assets.
I have debt — I still owe the bank $56K on my house. What do I have to show for it? A "dog room" where still-damp and still lightly muddy hounds can dry off before they're released into the rest of the house when they come in from outside after it's rained, and a decent-sized, fenced-in back yard where they run around protecting their domain from birds and squirrels and toads and snakes and anything else that violates it, just to mention the two things that are perhaps the most important to me.
>>With all that deficit spending we have more poor
There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of Americans living in poverty over the past one hundred years.
>>more on food stamps
As you know, the SNAP program hasn't been around for one hundred years (here's
a short history), but you might not know that it was developed to help farmers as well as the poor. I'd agree that the agriculture industry has changed a lot over the years. And a lot of SNAP benefits aren't used on fruit and vegetables. Perhaps we should look into changing that — maybe try to connect SNAP recipients with local farmers markets. Hmm, looks like someone else already thought of that: "
How 'Double Bucks' For Food Stamps Conquered Capitol Hill," npr.org, Nov 10, 2014.
>>more in section 8 housing
You've mentioned that before and I've asked for numbers.
>>more blacks unemployed than ever before
I'm pretty sure I've pointed out to you, when you claimed that there were "more blacks in poverty than ever before," that black poverty has been cut in half over the past sixty years. If you were to run that out to a hundred years, I'm sure the drop would be even more dramatic.
Here's the data on unemployment going back to 1972:
View attachment 67184261
>>labor participation rate is at it's lowest point.
I've seen that graph just recently on this site. I'm thinking you did as well. The LFPR was was much lower in the 1950s than it is now. The fact that that is misleading because it was a lot easier for a one-income household to get by back then is mirrored by the fact that the biggest reason it's down now is because a lot of baby boomers are retiring. All these stats must be understood in context.
>>Etc etc etc.
You have more?
>>We have achieved all this by borrowing and spending, and yet you continue to champion more borrowing an spending to increase more poor, and a worse off middle class, and more blacks unemployed, and more on food stamps etc. etc.
First, as you've been shown repeatedly, the garbage yer fed by Handjob, Limpblow, and others is a collection of divisive lies. And secondly, without the spending we've seen, the problems would be worse. Now very importantly, I'd say the money has often not been spent wisely. We need to correct that. Perhaps if we can get on the same page about what's really going on, we can begin to make that happen.
>>the top 10 poorest cities run by democrats and the top 10 most dangerous cities run by democrats
Very misleading. Could the elected officials in these cities reasonably be expected to turn things around on their own? Don't get me wrong — some city governments have done a better job than others, and they should all be held responsible to do the best they can to diminish poverty and violent crime. But I'm hoping you'll see this rhetoric for what is. Big cities, where you have yer big slum areas, are Democratic strongholds. That doesn't mean Democrats have caused those problems.
It may be impossible to prove that to be incorrect. But donsutherland1 has pointed to an alternative explanation that makes at least as much sense. What evidence do you have that yer theory is correct. If it's just a gut instinct, well OK, but is the "diminished hh wealth" theory sensible to you?