Liberals have no theory on poverty or government

The Undemocrats are talking about poverty levels. This is back to the problem of Keynesians trying to find a baseline that works for them.

So I borrow this poverty chart from Dylan Matthews. The first thing I hear is that LBJ did something useful. But the thing is,poverty levels had already reached an equilibrium by the time LBJ even got started.  Then the claim is that Clinton and budget cutting in DC caused harm to the poor, yet I see poverty levels declining. But Dan Crawford claims poverty levels were reduced, in part, because government killed the poor people.
 Poverty levels seem stable to some other variable, not government intervention. They seem to be stable with Reagan and Clinton, slightly lower with little Bush, and way up currently with Obama.  No policy effect, and the so called government intervention experts have no theory.  In other words, poverty levels are not an issue. I think that income distributions are important, but even for me, that is a conjecture at this point.

Do I have any theory on poverty levels? My guess is weather, oddly. There are fewer poor people in Minnesota because homeless people freeze to death. In California, a sleeping bag in the middle of winter works pretty good. However,  the trends show increasing migration to the sunbelt of all income groups. We need to disaggregate the migration patterns to find some real theory.

In fact, the so called intervention experts barely have a theory of US government that works in any fashion, they are mostly operating under the theory of hysteria. All their solutions presume that a government in DC can control the constituents of poverty, a fairly stupid idea.