Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <28200052@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Sep-85 02:19:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200052
Posted: Sun Sep  1 02:19:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Sep-85 05:28:12 EDT
References: <145@gargoyle.UUCP>
Lines: 38
Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle:-14500:inmet:28200052:177600:1751
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Sep  1 02:19:00 1985


>/* Written 10:28 am  Aug 19, 1985 by pedsgd!bob in inmet:net.politics.t */
>Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <28200051@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
>>
>>
>>If you want a lot of evidence for this, I suggest you read Charles
>>Murray's "Losing Ground".  In brief, the welfare state has harmed those
>
>I must get a copy of this book I guess. As refutation, Teddy White in
>"The Making of the President 1972" claims that the average income for
>blacks rose dramtically under the Great Society. I can ferret out the
>exact numbers if you want. Apparently they came from the 1970 census,
>but its hard to tell. On the down side, the number of broken homes
>also rose dramatically.

I'd be very interested in precisely what is claimed.  Take a look at
page 62 of Murray's book -- a graph there shows a steep plunge in
poverty for "blacks & others" (non-whites) from 1960-1970, and then
an erratic hovering around 30% from 1970-1980. 

>
>>The abolition of coercion need not make people more generous -- to 
>>spend $1 on a poor person, the Federal government must take in
>>$5.  A private agency need take in only about $1.10.  Remember, we're
>
>Just curious, but what is the source for this?

These figures and others were published on the net some time ago. (Sorry,
I've forgotten who posted them -- whoever did, please re-post with
references).
I'm pretty sure the private charity one is roughly correct (it was $1.13 for
United Way in Cleveland when I did a story on them for an in-house newspaper),
and it isn't obviously out of line for a government that must investigate
the people it's paying to, tax the people it's grabbing from, and spend on
the people who are doing all the paying and grabbing.