It is when you keep importing 10s of millions of uneducated unskilled workers who procreate for “birthright status” to remain here.
The one man who ever lived that I truly respect put it bluntly: “The poor you will always have with you.” - Jesus the Christ
So yeah. we will always have a “lowest common denominator”. Keep in mind that the poor in the US today, regarding quality of food, clothing, housing, etc. live better than the middle class did just a few decades ago. However, they are still the “poor in spirit”, so for most of them they live very unhappy lives. There are exceptions.
For most in the U.S. poverty is a lifestyle. The government is not able to correct that.
Yes. As Jesus once wisely said (translating Aramaic to King James English), “For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.”
Yes. We have been sincerely trying for more than 50 years and we are still failing. We are insane to keep trying.? We are already bankrupt.
If poverty rules in the black community they will only solve it when they decide to fix it themselves and stop relying on everybody else. The cure to poverty is education and work. Try it.
Jesus said there will always be poor. I’m taking His word on it.
In a free society, the only way to get poor people to not be poor, is to get them change the behavior that makes them stay poor.
GOBS of money can’t fix a poor person’s poverty issues.
I used to tell my Freshmen intro econ students that I could end poverty overnight. Even back then, they were mostly liberal enough that they were excited to hear the solution. Back then, a family of four living on $9600/yr or less were considered “poor”. My solution: Gather up everyone who makes $9600 or less and shoot them. Their eyes would go as big as pie plates and then the comments started flowing. After the initial shock wore off, I asked them how long it would be before the person making $9601 started bitching that he was the poorest person in the country. From there the discussion went into income distribution and how, in a free market society, someone would always be “poor”. Yet, the “poor” in the US have a higher standard of living than half of the world’s population and that history has taught us that any attempt to level the distribution of income always kills the goose that lays the golden egg.
I wonder if people read the Bible anymore? Jesus the Christ said that the poor would always be with us.
And He hasn’t been wrong yet.
5.56mm
Depends on your definition of poverty.
If your definition ‘poor’ is starving, homeless, and with little or no access to potable water, then yes, it can be fixed.
But if folks can be adequately fed, housed, with access to potable water and medicine, and still be considered ‘poor’ then no. After all, the ‘poor’ in the US frequent have weight problems.
But, since ‘fighting poverty’ is really about getting control over other folks income so that it can be pilfered, the real answer is a “Hell, No.”
OK, time to explain how things work. Poverty is not a factor of wealth. I said it, I said it. (as Chris Rock would say)
Poverty is a factor of mental illness normally. And occasionally from a sever loss of government (like in a rebellion, war, natural disaster, or gross incompetence such as Venezuela.) Wealth virtually always begets more wealth. And even though some may try to hoard wealth, its hard to appreciate the wealth without sharing it.
Mental illness includes depression and very low I.Q. Education can help a little. But education does not make an unstable person stable. And it does not make a drunk stop drinking, or someone who suffers from depression get off the couch. In the best of societies, there is a percent of mental illness. And in some societies that percent can approach 50% especially where drugs or alcohol are concerned.
As for this country there will always be people who are better off than others.People born with a higher IQ...people brought up by sane,responsible parents...people willing to study harder and/or longer...people willing to work harder and/or longer.
People who are here legally and are genuinely unable to fend for themselves through no fault of their own (because of illness,injury or birth defect for example) should be helped.Those who are just too lazy...or too drunk/high...to support themselves can starve IMO.
the way to end poverty is to work
This is such a complex question, which also asks ‘how do you define poverty’. It’s definitely a different answer in much of the world vs the US and other developed nations.
That said, to me there are a few essential and fundamental points. IMHO people need hope, dignity, and a sense of self worth to live fulfilling lives. In the context of the secular world and government, ensuring self-determinism and preserving the right to ‘better oneself’ (i.e. class mobility) is crucial. This is all part of freedom, which is a crucial and to me sacred concept that doesn’t get talked about much anymore.
It seems that vertical/hierarchical societies have been with us throughout history, including socialist/Communist societies. The difference between the American dream and being a serf living in some medieval kingdom is that the serf had no hope or reason for ambition and dreams, and no socioeconomic mobility. What was created here in America, the ability to honestly achieve based on ones dreams, ambitions, and efforts, is truly a treasure, and IMHO the very best way to fight poverty.
I believe we have an obligation as human beings to fight against suffering and to work to provide a safety net for those who truly need help. I also think that to truly help people to avoid poverty we need to preserve freedom and promote in every person the belief and hope that they can become more, achieve more, and live better, through their own efforts. Too many politicians, unfortunately, are sending a very different message - that the power to live a good life lies in government, and thus by voting to increase the power of government ones life will get better. It is, unfortunately, in some sense embarking on a road to serfdom voluntarily via the ballot box.
Define poverty in terms other than $s and do not modify it. You will then see that the only ones truly living in poverty in the US either suffer from mental issues or refuse to take offered aid. Poverty in terms of what the political ass-hats define is a relative measurement rather than discrete and therefore can never be eliminated.
King James Bible
For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
In other news, water is wet and A=A.
What emerges is an ambiguous consensus. Government can and should help
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Show me in the constitution where the government is authorized to “help” anybody.
As long as there are the stupid, the lazy, the unmotivated and the unlucky there will be poverty. Help the unlucky; ignore the rest.
Yes.
Because the definition of poverty is anything below "normal".
If the normal is fifty million then the guy with only a million is in poverty.
If the normal is a ten bed room house then the guy with a three bedroom house is in poverty.
Because the goal posts are constantly moving there is no way to "win".
Now if you are talking about "poverty" as having the basics of life; food, water, clothing and shelter, then the war on poverty is won.
The only people going hungry are those who are having food withheld from them. The only people who are without shelter are those who choose to be.
Matthew 26:11
For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
Depends kinda on what you BELIEVE; doesn't it?