It has been counterproductive to eliminating US poverty(https://theruggedindividualist.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/povert-rate.png). I tried to find a left leaning link, but they always leave out the previous downward trend.
Why defend the war on poverty?
Posts
Total:
38
-->
@Alec
I don't know much about it, but based on the graph, imo it is a scheme that makes people feel good and relevant, more so the agencies or groups who created these "wars" or ideas.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
"Give a fish" policies always have disastrous, unintended consequences to some degree.
Policies that encourage constructive lifestyle choices will always reduce poverty far more than handouts.
You can't create an incentive to not work while also destroying jobs with more taxes to fund said programs. Lose lose
-->
@Greyparrot
is there a better voter base than the poor and desperate? it's beneficial to have a large base like that if you want to be elected. What do you offer someone who isn't poor? Well you offer to let them keep more of their money perhaps, but they probably have adjusted to what they actually bring home, even so that wouldn't be a huge change for most people. you get elected generally by offering people free stuff which is actually other people's stuff that they didn't earn.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If politicians are supporting the war on poverty that they know fails over something that gets them power, then that's pretty evil because they are causing millions to be poor just to keep power over them.
-->
@Alec
and? you sound surprised but I don't know why. it's just a new kind of slavery really and it's legal. Consider this, wild animals who are captured or rehab'd often become dependent on the people taking care of it, to the point they could no longer survive in the wild. Very similar imo
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
That's a pretty apt comparison.
You take pride from a man by making them dependent. Men are meant to be providers and when you take that from them, they don't have much else.
The problem is that they don't actually want to solve the problem. They see the symptom of the problem, people living in poverty, and they know that is bad. So they put bandaid solutions in place to try to cover up the problem and deal with the worst of it. But they simply don't have the ability or the will to acknowledge that the underlying problem is how the economy has been designed. There is a reason why the economy is growing, the rich are getting massively richer and the financial situation of the poor and middle class is not improving.
The war on poverty has been a bad joke. It is a way for politicians to claim they are trying to help the poor while helping the rich squeeze all the money out of them.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I agree with most of what you said, I think you are spot on, the only issue is the claim about how the economy has been designed. That would require forethought and planning. The economy is almost a living entity, it changes, developes, ebbs and flows. Anyone can choose to participate in it, but that is a choice. Like every aspect of live it's easier for some than others. We take walking for granted and yet there are some who struggle to even stand, but that doesn't keep them from trying or finding solutions. If you look at the people who have overcome extreme adversity due to illness, accident etc, didn't quit but kept trying how can you have much empathy for someone unwilling to work and work hard to better their lives?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
That would require forethought and planning.
I didn't intend to imply that 1 person designed the economy. A group of people did it over decades. They smashed unions, they suppressed wages, they outsourced jobs to 3rd world countries to save a buck etc.
All these actions together created the economy we have now. And it is designed to funnel wealth upwards.
If you look at the people who have overcome extreme adversity due to illness, accident etc, didn't quit but kept trying how can you have much empathy for someone unwilling to work and work hard to better their lives?
I see this sort of example used alot, but it is a red herring. For every "lazy" poor person there are a dozen hard working ones who can't get ahead because costs are rising faster than wages. It's alot easier to blame poor people than it is to actually address the underlying reasons they are poor because the rich and powerful people do not want anyone doing that. So neither the republicans or most democrats will go anywhere near it.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't know about "smashed unions" as much as the corrupt ones turned people away from them or bankrupted the companies.
suppressed wages? aren't many employers having to increase starting pay etc because they don't have enough workers?
funnel wealth upwards, so you think people who start companies to make money, make more money is somehow wrong? these aren't charities.
ah yes the rise of costs, how much will costs go up with the socialist entitlements the democrat candidates are promising? hell they even admitted taxes will increase but that's ok, they will have programs to make more people dependant and those who already are, even more dependant on government handouts, great idea that will fix the problems LOL, not.
what is the make ends meet? they can't afford high speed internet? cable tv? I'll bet there's a lot of Vensualians who'd love to be poor in the U.S.
-->
@Alec
Isn't that just social reality.#6
Those that will lead and those that want to be led.
Those that are prepared to take responsibility for themselves and those that either will not or can not.
Those that achieve easily in a modern society and those that struggle to achieve.
I would suggest that root cause of social hierarchy is more to do with variable levels of natural ability rather than about the distribution of monetary wealth per se.
And after all, if financial disparity did not exist, then wouldn't the concept of money become somewhat irrelevant?
And do not attempts at pure socialism always fail?
-->
@zedvictor4
Pure socialism does fail. It eliminates incentive to work and be productive in society.
counterfactuals
-->
@Lucy
Care to elaborate and extend the discussion.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I don't know about "smashed unions" as much as the corrupt ones turned people away from them or bankrupted the companies.
I don't pretend that all unions are perfect, they're not. Anywhere there is money and power there is room for corruption. But the facts remain that unionized workers make more and have better benefits than non unionized workers. Companies know that and hate that. So they have spent decades crushing unions and paying off politicians to help them do it.
aren't many employers having to increase starting pay etc because they don't have enough workers?
not really no. The buying power of workers has been stagnant for decades while the rich have been getting ever richer.
funnel wealth upwards, so you think people who start companies to make money, make more money is somehow wrong? these aren't charities.
I don't pretend that they are. And they should be rewarded for that. But making hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of times more than the average worker is insane. Workers' wages are not improving. They have been stagnant for decades. But the owners and the share holders of those companies are getting richer at a record pace.
ah yes the rise of costs, how much will costs go up with the socialist entitlements the democrat candidates are promising?
they wont. they will go down.
hell they even admitted taxes will increase but that's ok, they will have programs to make more people dependant and those who already are, even more dependant on government handouts, great idea that will fix the problems LOL, not.
taxes will go up, that is true. but health insurance costs, co-pays, deductibles etc will all be eliminated. The average person will save a large amount of money while getting better service. but no one is pretending it is free.
what is the make ends meet? they can't afford high speed internet? cable tv? I'll bet there's a lot of Vensualians who'd love to be poor in the U.S.
this is a common distraction the right likes to make. America already has socialist policies (free schools, roads etc). So does canada and most of Europe. Pretending that being like the rest of the modern world will turn the US into Venezuela is a lie that the billionaire owners of fox news want you to believe.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Pro athletes and entertainment people imo a way overpaid but it's a demand thing, no different than any product, they are the product and the companies who employ them wouldn't pay them what they do if they didn't believe they, in turn would make more money. The companies that you hate are no different. Who are you or anyone else for that matter the one to dictate how much someone can earn if they do so within the law? Why don't you question how someone making $175k per year (part time mostly) is worth 20 million or more. Creepy Joe isn't the only one who's child/children have gotten rich because of who their parents are.
Unions had their day in the sun and they blew it with their own greed, it's sad really because the idea of how a union should work is a good one. I am pro union but not at the expense of killing business and unemployment.
Bernie has made a lot of money just writing books, that doesn't really employ many people, not really, shouldn't he have been taxed at like 60%? Let's be real, someone else actually did the work for him.
If there is a non leftist article about these healthcare schemes lowering costs I'll read them. If it was a net cost savings the would be hammered every chance the democrats could get, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Pro athletes and entertainment people imo a way overpaid but it's a demand thing, no different than any product, they are the product and the companies who employ them wouldn't pay them what they do if they didn't believe they, in turn would make more money. The companies that you hate are no different.
strongly disagree. Athletes are employees. they do not decide their own salary. they negotiate for their salary. CEOs do not negoiate for their salary (in many cases). Their salary is determined by a board they often appointed, are the chair of etc. Athletes and CEOs are in no way similar.
Unions had their day in the sun and they blew it with their own greed, it's sad really because the idea of how a union should work is a good one.
Some unions had corrupt people, just like some countries (or companies) had corrupt people. Billionaires used those bad examples as a scapegoat to crush unions in america. The problem is not the unions, the problem is the billionaires.
Bernie has made a lot of money just writing books, that doesn't really employ many people, not really, shouldn't he have been taxed at like 60%? Let's be real, someone else actually did the work for him.
I don't believe he has ever said he should be exempt from the tax rate. If he raised the tax rate I am sure he would be happy to pay the appropriate taxes on his book sales.
If there is a non leftist article about these healthcare schemes lowering costs I'll read them.
the problem is that the right wing articles hide the facts behind their twisted interpretation. For example a right wing think tank released a study saying that medicare for all would cost like 30 trillion dollars and they used that as evidence that it was impossible to implement. They glossed over the fact that the current system is estimated that it will cost more than that. So continuing as America is right now would be more expensive that medicare for all. But they hide behind the 30 trillion dollar figure to pretend like it is somehow unaffordable. Even though america is already paying that.
-->
@HistoryBuff
so wealthy individuals like athletes and entertainers aren't the problem? because I think they are WAY over paid. If they negotiate their salaries only a company who has the resources could hire them which is one of the incredibly wealthy companies you speak of right? How can you have one and not the other?
medicare for all could be the one time that the government didn't waste money, over pay for everything because people found ways to take advantage, and there won't be horrible unintended consequences, it is possible, just like life on other planets.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so wealthy individuals like athletes and entertainers aren't the problem? because I think they are WAY over paid. If they negotiate their salaries only a company who has the resources could hire them which is one of the incredibly wealthy companies you speak of right? How can you have one and not the other?
They are a symptom of the problem. But they are another distraction. Mainstream media outlets want everyone to focus on "the other". It's celebrities' fault. It's immigrants' fault. It's that other political party's fault. etc. It is all intended to keep people from really taking a look at the system and seeing that is has been stacked to reward a tiny fraction of society while screwing over everyone else.
medicare for all could be the one time that the government didn't waste money, over pay for everything because people found ways to take advantage, and there won't be horrible unintended consequences, it is possible, just like life on other planets.
There is always waste. The current system is massively wasteful. Trillions are spent on stupid things like drugs that have a 100,000% markup and on byzantine insurance systems that don't make any sense but waste huge amounts of time and money. Pretending like private systems are somehow not wasteful is a fantasy. But at least if the government is providing the care, then the goal is to help people. When private companies are doing it the goal is suck as much money out of them as possible.
so giving food to people who are struggling with starvation,is counter productive sometimes, therefore it shouldn't be done?
-->
@linate
The war on poverty keeps people poor. Had the war on poverty not existed, poverty would have been vanquished by the 1980s and the chart confirms this.
-->
@Alec
it sometimes keeps people poor. it also sometimes gives food and healthcare to people who need it.
also it's ridiculous to say poverty would have been eradicated. what about disabled people? as jesus said, we will always have the poor with us.
-->
@linate
The stats say otherwise and it keeps poor people poor. Otherwise the poverty rate wouldn't have stagnated when the policy was implemented.it sometimes keeps people poor. it also sometimes gives food and healthcare to people who need it.
also it's ridiculous to say poverty would have been eradicated.That's where the graph was going. It was heading linerally downwards. I should have said virtually eradicated.
what about disabled people?As someone with autism, I don't need welfare. The autistic people that actually are too dumb to work get taken care of by their parents.
as jesus said, we will always have the poor with us.Jesus never said that. He did say to give to the poor though if that's what you were hinting at. Something that can be given to the poor is knowledge as to how to get out of poverty. Give a man a welfare check, you feed him for a month. Show a man better jobs that he can get, and you fed him for life in a cheaper and more fulfilling way that lifts him out of poverty instead of keeping him dependent on the government.
-->
@Alec
bob is a schizophrenic homeless man. he is struggling with starvation. but giving him food stamps makes his situation worse?
-->
@linate
I'd encourage him to depend on local consenting charities rather than a bureaucratic government. I also would want the charities to help him with his schizophrenia so he can get out of poverty himself instead of being stuck on welfare. Giving him food stamps gives him no incentive to improve. Taking away those food stamps encourages him to seek out charities that ultimately get him out of poverty and to help him deal with his schizophrenia better than the alternative of him suffering while dependent on the government.
-->
@Alec
some disabled people are too severely disabled to find ways to be better off.
-->
@linate
I think their parents would take care of them. The parents love the kid enough to do that. I think most to all of the disabled would survive with charities in place if their parents kick them out, which I doubt they would do.