Author Topic: Why are the poor, poor?  (Read 124425 times)

Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #80 on: May 02, 2008, 03:56:45 pm »
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.



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/


Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #81 on: May 02, 2008, 04:06:55 pm »
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.



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.

Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #82 on: May 02, 2008, 04:11:47 pm »
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


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.

Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #83 on: May 02, 2008, 04:16:16 pm »
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?

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.

Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #84 on: May 02, 2008, 04:19:55 pm »

Restricted in what way? It's only legal for poor people, or what?


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

Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #85 on: May 02, 2008, 04:31:44 pm »
Good morning, broketrash, and thanks for such a thorough and carefully considered response!
Two problems with this that come to mind immediately: 1) I imagine lots and lots of kids would be mislabeled and put on the wrong track. Think of all the stories of great and famous people who were not high achievers in school. 2) Many technical and trade jobs are increasingly being automated or outsourced.

So you're contending that the Welfare roles are filled with underqualified former college students?? Hunh?? I'd guess that most poor people did not attend college, and that going to college, whatever one's academic skills, is one of the surest ways OUT of poverty.

I don't know about the program in Germany, but times have changed over the generations. The job skills that led to success a generation ago, or even a decade ago, are not necessarily in the same demand today.

And the "guaranteed job"? That sounds suspiciously like it would involve more government intervention.

I like this idea! And while we're at it, let's reintroduce shame as a social deterrent to mass murder, as well.

Actually, I've never understood why anybody would object to this idea. Potentially, it seems, Welfare could be the equivalent of Roosevelt's WPA.


on the two track educational system beginning in high school and extending thru the college years.

the two tracks would be predicated on testing and observation as to the fit of a student in pursuing an academic path or a technical path. This type of system has worked and still works well in several countries in Europe and in Japan.

There is nothing about the two track system which locks the student into that track forever. If a student on an academic track for example, develops more of an interest in a technical subject which requires more hands on training and less academic training, then he or she would be free to switch tracks. A bit like switching majors in college between subjects which are radically different. Started for a BA in History, but decided to get a CS degree later on.

Apprenticeships and guaranteed jobs for those students which graduated the technical side of the process makes a great deal of sense to private industry and has extensive backing among private employers. What employers want are qualified graduates who do not have to be taught remedial programs by the employers, and that is what is happening right now. Students emerging from our high schools and colleges should be ready for the workplace. right now they have essentially been baby sat, except for those who are academic achievers and are going on into degreed programs at universities.

those whom we have forgotten about in our educational system are the very people who are most at risk to becoming or remaining a part of the underclass. my idea is a part of early intervention to avoid that cycle of welfare that I have been complaining about.

just because a good idea came from FDR, doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea! ;D I know my grandpa is rolling in his grave, but lets face it gramps, Alf Landon would have made a sorry President.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,758
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #86 on: May 02, 2008, 04:50:24 pm »
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 quite that simple. First of all, the poverty rate was reduced 8% nationally in the following 10 years, not 45.

From Wikipedia:

In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level to date: 11.1% . They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since. Since 1973 poverty has remained well below the historical U.S. averages in the range of 20-25%

What economic and cultural contributions have been made by those millions of would-be poor people who are instead taxpaying productive citizens -- helping pay for those very programs!  ;D  -- is a more complex calculation than I am able to make. What I can say is that there are millions of people out there who probably do not consider the project a failure.



 :laugh: :laugh:

Here's something I just noticed: On an annual basis, the War on Poverty has cost about as much as the War in Iraq: about $100 billion a year. (The WoP has cost $5 trillion over 45 years; the WiI has cost $500 billion over 5 years).

Now, the Iraq War is hardly the gold standard for success or cost-effectiveness, so in that sense it's an unappealing comparison. On the other hand, the War on Poverty undoubtedly hasn't killed as many people, hasn't caused as many people to hate us, and so far seems to have made more people better off.

Let's hope we're not having this same discussion about the effectiveness of the Iraq War in 40 years!





Offline Artiste

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,998
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #87 on: May 02, 2008, 06:12:30 pm »
Alberta did have many problems with no taxes, since it closed hospitals !!

Dire times then and now too !!

Offline Artiste

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,998
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #88 on: May 02, 2008, 06:27:38 pm »
Slavery is coming back, unfortunately!!

Even China has slaves, children as such now sold to the rich on the auction block !

Does anyone but I know ?

Offline Artiste

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,998
Re: Why are the poor, poor?
« Reply #89 on: May 02, 2008, 06:31:51 pm »
The First Nations are used as slaves in the USA ?

In Canada, they are so... in more than one way !!