Here is Politifact on the 2015 budget.
This is such a tricky subject, but you totally have a point. Clearly there are people, especially with mental or physical health problems for whom poverty is simply an added burden.
On this we disagree.
Learning STEM stuff means taking courses in STEM stuff.
Chronic illness may be mitigated, depending on the disorder. There are lots of chronic conditions that can be managed, either by training the person in a skill they can do or simply providing care to manage symptoms. (For example, plenty of mental health problems can be managed, but it’s often a matter of connecting people with the right care.)This is such a tricky subject, but you totally have a point. Clearly there are people, especially with mental or physical health problems for whom poverty is simply an added burden.
OTOH, how do we handle teens with problems such as substance abuse problems and poor impluse control? Through the legal system, which is not a good way to help someone out of a life of government involvement, not that we have really found a good other way
So it seems like it would be a good idea to consider *all *the reasons people end up poor, and see what can be done to solve each of the source problems, some of which, of course, are insoluble, such as the fact that someone has a chronic illness.
I don’t think everyone can inherently learn to do advanced math on the level (including speed and accuracy) required for STEM subjects. Especially if you have the constraints of a normal college courseload and financial limits.
Military funding creates large numbers of jobs also. Most people conveniently ignore that.
Defense of the nation as a whole is definitely part of what the federal government should be doing, and defense of the nation as needed is a part of every national government’s job.On this we disagree.
Moreover, I’m confident we’d also disagree on what extent the US should be deployed abroad in the name of national security. Think of how alarmed you’d feel if Russia or China had as many foreign installations around the world as the US does!
Now try to imagine how THEY feel in that same context.
).You bring up some cery good points here. Poverty in the US is a multi-faceted problem which, imo, should be addressed on a more local level so that poor people could be helped in individual ways rather than in a factory way.
You have to balance it. It becomes an issue if it gets too local. You’re seeing that with the school system now in certain places. The local area is overall poor, so the school system can’t get the money to provide services to the students, which perpetuates poverty.
If the world would adopt American capitalism, it probably would]
.
There may be other factors, but the timeline of the dramatic rise of black children born out of wedlock is concurrent with the beginning of programs such as AFDC that “encouraged” fathers out of the house.
Actually, not too much. Some of it is indeed other entitlement programs, but outside of that, the percentage of spending compared to the budget and GDP isn’t much different in areas such as defense.
It generally isn’t thousands, and there is so much financial aid available
Depends on where you live (part of the reason not to have a federal minimum wage), but the fact is that a married couple both working full time at minimum wage can make it as a start.
When I say “victim”, I mean “the one suffering the consequences”, not that they are blameless. Poor word choice on my part.
More consequences of not having two parent homes. But if we teach children this - in school!! - it may help
Do not conflate the state with Workers. Most workers are part owners of the means of production if they have a 401k.
And this is where the higher levels of government could (and do) help, by giving financial aid to poorer areas. For example, I once knew a G&T teacher in a very poor county, and her position was paid for by a grant from the state.
Fair enough. :tiphat:That being said, what our government has the military do is up for discussion (in general, I mean, not here on this thread
I almost spat my coffee out when I read this. What do you think this mean for the worker, if anything?
And capitalist societies are any different?
I had a chuckle too!
The plain language of the constitution agrees with St Francis.On this we disagree.
Moreover, I’m confident we’d also disagree on what extent the US should be deployed abroad in the name of national security. Think of how alarmed you’d feel if Russia or China had as many foreign installations around the world as the US does!
Now try to imagine how THEY feel in that same context.
For me, as a worker, it means significantly more money to retire on, money I can pass on to my family, as opposed to Social Security that confiscates my property with no promise of a return.
I’m always a little suspicious of this. It’s like saying anyone can win a race. That’s true, anyone can, but not everyone can. The worry with capitalism is that you end up with a situation where there are X well-paying jobs, and X+Y people who want jobs. Most pure capitalist societies have either practiced slavery or had a large number of very low paid jobs.
And in socialism all the jobs are low paying except the ruling class. The fact is even most of those at the poverty line here in America live far better than the truly empoverished around the world.
On the other hand, in unrestricted capitalism, you end up with a lot of jobs that almost might as well be slavery. The worker is technically free, but he’s expected to work the entire day to meet his basic needs. He doesn’t have the free resources to develop a better skill, and refusing to work will harm him faster than it will harm the business owner, unless there’s some sort of labor organization.
More money indeed.
You could strike out “Government control” from the statement and replace it with literally anything and it would still be equally true.
Social mobility is a reality. But for every person that becomes wealthier, someone has to become poorer - as an economic fact. Otherwise inflation renders the wealth as moot.
The American standard of living, factually, is not the highest in the world. We’re currently 20th.