If you cant even get the search engine name right, you have no chance at all. No wonder you cant defend your points or even grasp that base argument.
Uhh...what? You want me to guess what search engine you used to show you don't know anything about this subject?
I guessed Google, but I suppose I should have guessed something like AskJeeves.com on the basis that your sophistication of technology likely matches the sophistication of your political knowledge.
I mean, if you cant even understand that your statement of immigrants doing poorly translates into their remaining poor and America needing to have them show up as poor today or your argument falls apart and mine is proped up, then how could you possibly form a remotely decent argument.
I literally am at a loss on how someone can be this dense.
Before the New Deal, more than a third of the population was in poverty, including the
vast majority of immigrants. Poverty was hugely reduced between 1935 and 1980. The fact that you are then ascribing modern poverty rates to the pre-1935 conditions and policies is a special kind of retarded.
I mean, you might as well say that entitlements have held the black community in artificial poverty, despite the clear statistical evidence of the fact that black poverty was far, far worse before social democratic institutions. And I'm sure you would.
Immigrants pre-1960 DID do well because the amount of upper and middle class increased constantly over time showing that improvement.
Again, it's hilarious that you don't see that
you're making an argument against your point: the middle class and the expansion of the upper class (domestically that's a silly concept, but I'll once again substitute some of my own coherency for you, and assume you're meaning relative living standards to the international community) were owed to social democratic policies including unemployment, social security, medicare, and legislative worker rights.
And do I really need to point out that the decline in that photo started in 1820, 140 YEARS before these social safety nets started AND that its WORLD-WIDE, not America...that chart is due to CAPITALISM....worse yet, your second photo actually proves you WRONG. In that photo in 1968 the poverty rate is at 14%...its at %15 in 2013...with almost 5X THE AMOUNT OF SOCIAL SPENDING.
That's the beginning of the chart, you fucking idiot.
1820-1920 = 15% reduction over 100 years
1940-1980 = 25% reduction over 40 years.
Also, using cap locks doesn't make your point clearer: it just makes your hysteria more obvious.
