Posted on 09/01/2016 5:18:59 AM PDT by expat_panama
Don't expect a second War on Poverty, regardless of who wins the election.
Picking up where Lyndon Johnson left off in the 1960s would seem a logical response to the campaign's relentless criticism of economic inequality. But appearances are deceiving. Most proposals to reduce inequality -- conspicuously from Hillary Clinton -- are aimed at the middle class. Spillovers for the very poor would be mostly incidental.
These proposals include: raising Social Security payments; increasing subsidies for early childhood care; reducing -- or eliminating -- college tuition at state colleges and universities; boosting the minimum wage. For his part, Donald Trump has pledged not to trim Social Security benefits and to cut taxes across the board. That automatically favors the rich and middle class because they pay most of the taxes.
There are two powerful reasons for slighting the poor.
First, the poor are not where the votes are...
...second reason is less recognized: There's no consensus in public opinion for launching a second War on Poverty...
...here's the contradiction: Government isn't judged up to the job. Both surveys asked whether government knew enough to eliminate poverty even if it could "spend whatever is necessary." In 1985, 70% said "no." In 2016, the negative response was 73%.
What emerges is an ambiguous consensus. Government can and should help, but it can do only so much. The poor themselves -- along with their families, churches and charities -- must play the starring role. None of this constitutes a powerful mandate for a vast new anti-poverty program. We know more now than we did in the 1960s. We are no longer so optimistic and confident of success. To many Americans, eliminating poverty has become a mission impossible.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
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.
“the poor you will always have with you”...
but these globalists/corporatists are making their money off the backs of the poor when they get into all this shite.
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.
It is the opportunity through liberty that the government should ensure. Whether an individual or family decides to take that and run it out to wealth and prosperity, or retreat into starvation and a wasted life is on each own.
Pure and true liberty is a terrifying thing (for the unmotivated or sloth)
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.
Explain how "these globalists/corporatists are making their money off the backs of the poor" who have nothing and produce nothing?
Sounds like a typical class warfare slogan. If "the poor" are being "exploited" find (or create) another job.
A lifestyle with a government check that somehow affords them a tv in every room. A room for every kid. And bling for everyone.
every little law whether federal state or local, & taxes the same, the food you purchase, the cars you drive and all the rest of the argle bargle that one can swallow during a lifetime defines a individual if they have not dis-connected from the constant flow of propaganda, overused social media and all the Hollywood you want....
imho it’s all a wash - one needs to choose judiciously in what one allows in one’s life. Are you willing to be controlled by the mass media and the msm? Are you willing to be controlled by your friends expectations if you disagree with them ? There’s a lot of questions to asked & answered but the very heart of the matter is to be true to yourself .
Corporatists/Globalists view general populations as sheeple & willing slaves to their message.
It’s best to stay OFF their message.
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.
We should spare no expense until everyone is above average.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.