The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
Why are the poor, poor?
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: SunShadow on May 02, 2008, 10:27:42 am ---I am a lifelong moderate Democrat, but find myself in agreement with broketrash on the above points, particularly those concerning education. I am a former educator, from a family of educators, and view the US educational system as a flat out mess. Broketrash's suggestions are in line with my own beliefs about how we might improve it.
--- End quote ---
that is good to hear Sunshadow, you might find that there are many scholarly studies verifying what I have opined. this is an issue that is just now coming to a boil on the national pot, and I am happy to be a tiny part of the dialog.
http://www.heritage.org/
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: seriouscrayons on May 02, 2008, 11:08:04 am ---Good morning, broketrash, and thanks for such a thorough and carefully considered response!
I've never understood why people think this would be a good idea. Why would states and local governments be any better at handling this than the federal government? As Jeff said, handing responsibility to the states would just create new, even thornier, state-level problems. Just about every state has its Juniata County vs. Philadelphia situation. Or worse, IMO, is the conflict between cities, suburbs and rural areas. Many suburbanites, I've noticed, have little empathy for urban or rural poor people. (And I say that as someone who grew up in a suburb, lives in one now, and still likes a lot of things about them.) To me, this just seems like a strategy for giving people who oppose poverty programs more power to dismantle them.State administration would also create instability of various kinds as welfare recipients in states with limited programs flood across the borders of neighboring states with more generous programs.
--- End quote ---
You are correct that the debate at the state and local level will become fiery and furious in the next decade. But, that is the way our founding fathers intended a federal republic to function. It is far better to have the debate and the decision making at the local level rather than dictated by the Federal gov. Yes, the response will vary state by state, that is the genius of "federalism". Some states will implement programs that help, others programs that do not fix the problem. In the open marketplace of ideas, those states which make the correct decisions will prosper and those that do not will fail. That is the nature of how our economy and our gov should work.
Ultimately you divorce decision making from the electorate at your own peril. Elitist advocacy from the bench or academia or the press will fail. And those suburbanites or urbanites such as myself will in the end make the decisions.
Roe v Wade should have taught the elitists in this country a lesson. The debate over Roe has been hugely destructive and unnecessary had the court stepped away from legislating from the bench and allowed the states to decide this matter themselves. When the debate over abortion breaks out next lege session here in TX, I will sign on to choice, I hope that it passes by constitutional amendment, but if it doesn't, there are other states which will keep abortion legal, and TX will suffer economically because the Bible thumpers refuse to keep abortion legal. I make the same argument about same sex marriage. Let the debate in a free society be free among all of the people.
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: seriouscrayons on May 02, 2008, 11:08:04 am ---Good morning, broketrash, and thanks for such a thorough and carefully considered response!
As for private charities, they're already in the business of helping the poor, but they somehow don't seem to be fixing everything either. Would taxpayers, relieved of their responsibility to pay for federal Welfare, turn over the same amount of their income to charities? Um, yeah, a few might.
This is among the reasons I think we all have an interest in addressing poverty.
Right -- poverty has not been eliminated, just reduced. When the War on Poverty was intruduced in 1964, the U.S. poverty rate was 19 percent. Over the following decade, it dropped to 11 percent, and currently hovers around 12 percent.
From the Census Bureau:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html
--- End quote ---
thank you for the link and the census bur facts.
that is good that poverty has been reduced by 7 % nationally in the following 45 years! good lord , we have spent TRILLIONS on these misguided programs! what a waste of money that the tax payers could have kept for their own family's needs, and the rate has only been reduced by 7% in 45 years after trillions!
not what I would call a success at all.
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: seriouscrayons on May 02, 2008, 11:08:04 am ---How will "all" be equipped to "eventually emulate the winners"? I'm guessing state politics and economics would largely shape the structures and outcomes of these hypothetical state-level programs. And those two factors, among others, vary widely among states. Would a program that works in Maryland work equally well in Mississippi?
--- End quote ---
the winners will be the states which succeed in reducing poverty and the tax rate paid by the tax payers. the winners will be states which address and solve the issue of schools which are irrelevant to both the students and the local economy.
the winners will be decided in the open market, those states which succeed will attract more commerce, industry and in migration or talented workers who wish to relocate there. the losers will lose industry, commerce and productive citizens.
this is how our "federal" economy works and this reform of welfare makes the "federalist" system work even better.
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: seriouscrayons on May 02, 2008, 11:08:04 am ---
Restricted in what way? It's only legal for poor people, or what?
--- End quote ---
just the current restictions on abortion which involve age of mother and age of fetus. economic status would not be a legal determining factor in access to abortion
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version