Post #6435 by Dope1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (43)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 2

It may have been lame to cite a source you didn't use, but his analysis is at least partially correct. You give money to elevate people out of poverty. Poverty ticks down a smidge. You take that money away. It ticks up a smidge. Totally predictable.

You know what a better way to lift someone out of poverty is? Have them get a job in an expanding economy.

Also, to your other point, the endpoints you choose make a big difference. You chose before-COVID to today. That is a valid basis, but comparing the peak of COVID to today also is valid. That's one reason I looked at a longer time horizon. When you do that, you see that not much has changed in 60 years. Roughly the same percent in 1965 and 2019 and today.

Comparing the 1960's in poverty to now is a bit of a stretch, especially when one is trying to decide if the current guy in office is doing the job or not.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (43)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.