Will poverty be eliminated in 25 years?

[vern_humphrey]

Not only that, but by using it for so-called humanitarian efforts instead of to build your economy you end up in a situation of being dependent on the aid. No different than the way some people spiral down on welfare. As social programs are built up the costs never go away and the 3rd world economies cannot support the programs so the need/demand for aid becomes ever increasing.

You know, there’s a First World country that hasn’t learned that lesson – they believe that welfare, paying more for each out-of-wedlock child, subsidizing bad decisions and so on is “fighting poverty.”

If I think real hard, I might come up with the name of that feckless First World country.

 

[melensdad]

If I think real hard, I might come up with the name of that feckless First World country.

I don’t think you have to look too far because I can see it from here.

I am constantly amazed about the “compassionate” arguments that are made for aiding the poor. Is it more compassionate to give someone a handout, or a hand up?

I work in an area that borders a somewhat disadvantages area, yet has plenty of wealth too. So I constantly see people with ***WILL WORK FOR FOOD **signs standing by the road. Being a reasonably good person (I try to be good) *I used to stop and offer those people jobs. I did it about a dozen times and EVERY SINGLE TIME that I did it the people gave me essentially the same reply. . . no I don’t want a job, I just want money

Perhaps my heart has been hardened, but I no longer offer those people jobs.

I actually got to talking with one of them one day, he actually told me he could “earn” a couple hundred dollars PER DAY in 3 to 4 hours.

Obviously that is not poverty with that type of money.

But our society is constantly rewarding bad behavior and then we scratch our heads and wonder why things are “so bad” in our society. All it takes is a little common sense to see that if you pay people for not working then the lazy people will simply take the money and sit on their butts and expect it. The sincere people would rather have the job and they make a real effort. But we have developed a system where we condone bad behavior and then we reward it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You know the story of the liberal and the conservative walking down the street? A homeless person approached them, “I haven’t eaten in two days!”

The conservative gave the man his business card and said, “Come by my office tomorrow and I’ll give you a job.” Then he took $20 out of his pocket and said, “This will tide you over.”

They walked on and met another homeless man. The liberal said, “I’ll handle this.” He gave the poor man a card with the address of the nearest welfare office, took $20 out of the conservative’s pocket, gave $5 to the poor man, and kept $15 for administrative expenses.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I don’t think you have to look too far because I can see it from here.

I am constantly amazed about the “compassionate” arguments that are made for aiding the poor. Is it more compassionate to give someone a handout, or a hand up?

I work in an area that borders a somewhat disadvantages area, yet has plenty of wealth too. So I constantly see people with ***WILL WORK FOR FOOD **signs standing by the road. Being a reasonably good person (I try to be good) *I used to stop and offer those people jobs. I did it about a dozen times and EVERY SINGLE TIME that I did it the people gave me essentially the same reply. . . no I don’t want a job, I just want money

Perhaps my heart has been hardened, but I no longer offer those people jobs.

I actually got to talking with one of them one day, he actually told me he could “earn” a couple hundred dollars PER DAY in 3 to 4 hours.

Obviously that is not poverty with that type of money.

But our society is constantly rewarding bad behavior and then we scratch our heads and wonder why things are “so bad” in our society. All it takes is a little common sense to see that if you pay people for not working then the lazy people will simply take the money and sit on their butts and expect it. The sincere people would rather have the job and they make a real effort. But we have developed a system where we condone bad behavior and then we reward it.

This is a tough issue if the goal is really to eliminate economic poverty. Some people lack the wit or skills to be aything but poor. Some really are physically able but not mentally able to work. Far too many have become so dependent upon government handouts that they will not work. I think we can actually help that latter group but we’ve got to get the government out of the way in order to do it.

I’m convinced that Catpitalism is the best economic system for the greatest number of persons ever devised. I think it is most aligned with natural law.

To get government out of the way one of the first things that must be done is to eliminate “no fault devorce”. I believe this alone has impoverished more women and children than anything else and it promotes immorality.

CDL

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is a tough issue if the goal is really to eliminate economic poverty. Some people lack the wit or skills to be aything but poor.

But many of them can be trained. The tough part is **this **generation – if we can inculcate the values of education, hard work and saving into the next generation, things will be much better.

Some really are physically able but not mentally able to work. Far too many have become so dependent upon government handouts that they will not work. I think we can actually help that latter group but we’ve got to get the government out of the way in order to do it.

And that is the real problem – we have created a subculture which sees welfare as an economic strategy, a way of life. We subsidized bad decisions – and wonder of wonders! – we got a lot more of them.

I’m convinced that Catpitalism is the best economic system for the greatest number of persons ever devised. I think it is most aligned with natural law.

It’s hard to argue with that – someone has to pay the bills, and to do that we have to be productive.

To get government out of the way one of the first things that must be done is to eliminate “no fault devorce”. I believe this alone has impoverished more women and children than anything else and it promotes immorality.

CDL

Can’t argue with that. My parents were divoirced when I was about 2 and they got back together again when I was about 10, so I’ve seen it from both sides. Believe me, two parents is better.

 

[MilesXpisti]

But many of them can be trained. The tough part is **this **generation – if we can inculcate the values of education, hard work and saving into the next generation, things will be much better.

This is a direct by-product of post-modern Western society. The transition from a service-based to information-based economy, coupled with the laissez-faire approach to education and occupation selection has resulted in a glut of applicants toward particular areas that are perceived as providing the greatest material reward, and thusly severe competition. The only way to ensure greater economic stability is the assignment of occupation along an individuals greatest innate ability, and the re-introduction of the master/apprenticeship model, where indivduals begin preparing for their occupation much earlier.
vern humphrey:

And that is the real problem – we have created a subculture which sees welfare as an economic strategy, a way of life. We subsidized bad decisions – and wonder of wonders! – we got a lot more of them.

Again, this is a direct result of Western economic practice. If a person can receive greater monetary standing by receiving welfare than they can earn at a job, of course they’re going to choose welfare (which political correctness has been largely able to destigmatize).

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is a direct by-product of post-modern Western society. The transition from a service-based to information-based economy, coupled with the laissez-faire approach to education

We don’t have a laissez-faire approach to education. In fact, the government builds the schools, hires the teachers, selects the text books, sets the curriculum, and runs the whole thing with tax money.

In other words, when it comes to education the government owns the means of production. There’s a name for a system like that – it’s right on the tip of my tongue . . .

and occupation selection has resulted in a glut of applicants toward particular areas that are perceived as providing the greatest material reward, and thusly severe competition.

And this is wrong, how?

The only way to ensure greater economic stability is the assignment of occupation along an individuals greatest innate ability, and the re-introduction of the master/apprenticeship model, where indivduals begin preparing for their occupation much earlier.

And parents could sell their children for seven years, rigt? And an apprentice who ran away could be pursued and recaptured by his master, right?

And people would be locked in to their jobs – not daring to aspire to better themselves.

There’s a name for that system, too – I wish I could remember it.

Again, this is a direct result of Western economic practice. If a person can receive greater monetary standing by receiving welfare than they can earn at a job, of course they’re going to choose welfare (which political correctness has been largely able to destigmatize).

Now that is true. We have created a welfare system that has become a way of life and an economic strategy.

 

[Firefox]

No. Talk to your old economics teacher. If you evened everything out right now, it wouldn’t take too long for there to be rich and poor again. I’ve heard 1 generation, but it’s on solid ground that it will happen.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No. Talk to your old economics teacher. If you evened everything out right now, it wouldn’t take too long for there to be rich and poor again. I’ve heard 1 generation, but it’s on solid ground that it will happen.

There is an old Chinese saying, “Coolie to coolie, three generations” – meaning the son of a coolie can rise to prosperity, and the son of a prosperous man can sink to poverty.

Americans are highly mobile economically. Most of us who are prosperous got there on our own efforts and our children will rise or fall on their own efforts.

 

[JimG]

Not unless the next generation works real hard to pay off the national debt that we have bequeathed them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not unless the next generation works real hard to pay off the national debt that we have bequeathed them.

The debt is a problem – but it’s the continued over-spending that’s the real problem. If we simply held spending at current levels, in a few years we’d be running a surplus we could devote to the debt.

We’ve maxed out our credit cards – and Congress’ solution is to apply for new credit cards.

Another hidden problem is the FICA tax. You pay 7.65% off the top and your employer pays another 7.65%. That’s your money – you earned it. (If you didn’t, who did?)

Now, when the government takes 15.3% of your income, what do you have left to save?

 

[melensdad]

The debt is a problem – but it’s the continued over-spending that’s the real problem. If we simply held spending at current levels, in a few years we’d be running a surplus we could devote to the debt.

But Vern, in convoluted government bureaucratic talk, if you plan for a 15% budget increase, and only get a 10% increase they claim that they took a 5% budget cut

The most amazing thing to me is that the major media sources report it that way!!!

Until we can get people to be individually responsible for their actions there is no way that we can even begin to address eliminating poverty.

We allow abortion, our schools pass out condems, so now free sex has little consequence. Should an unwanted child be conceived to a teenage girl we will feed and care for it, or abort it, all without any social stigma or disgrace. The father is quite often not held responsible, so there is little incentive for him to step up and due his duty. Most poverty is centered around single parent families and often of young unwed mothers.

We will certainly always have the mentally retarded and the physically disabled that we should take care of, but as a society we should make a much stronger effort to keep down the rate of “accidental” pregnancies by teaching abstenance, injecting moral standards and supporting traditional families as opposed to accepting alternative living arrangements.

A few more facts about poverty. While single moms tend to be more likely to live in poverty with their kids, those kids also tend to commit more crimes, be more violent, and they also tend to have higher rates of divorce and they tend to spawn more illegitimate children. This is not a race issue, it crosses all races (at least in the US).

 

[JimG]

The debt is a problem – but it’s the continued over-spending that’s the real problem. If we simply held spending at current levels, in a few years we’d be running a surplus we could devote to the debt.

How can we hold spending at current levels when we have promised social security and medicare and medicaid and prescription drug benefits to the upcoming generation of retiring boomers? All those benefits are to be paid by their working children. Meeting those obligations will require tax increases or benefit cuts.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But Vern, in convoluted government bureaucratic talk, if you plan for a 15% budget increase, and only get a 10% increase they claim that they took a 5% budget cut

The most amazing thing to me is that the major media sources report it that way!!!

I’ll give you a better one than that – there is no accountability in the budget. Our system was designed to be run with a ledger book and a steel-nibbed pen. So real needs are rolled up into categories, line items and so on, so that a clerk with a green eyeshde and sleeve protectors can manage it…

When Congress debates a budget, they wheel and deal, taking a billion out of this “line item” and putting a billion in another “program.” When the budget passes , they have no idea what the money will buy. They know they broke something, but they don’t know what.

So high level bureaucrats have the power to “manage” the money. Of course, they don’t know what’s broken, either – but something is. So they hold some money back for “emergencies.”

And the bureaucrats below them do the same thing. And the bureaucrats below them.

Then the end of the fiscal year approaches and the system is awash with unspent money, held back for “emergencies” that didn’t occur. But we can’t leave the money unspent! Congress will cut us next year if we do that.

So there’s a wild stampede to spend “year end funds.” And the contracting officers are swamped. They run out of time to announce contracts, to allow prospective bidders the statutory 60 days to respond, to evaluate the bids and allow for bid protests.

So now the system is full of money we can’t spend on contracts – we ran out of time. We have to find a way to spend it without contracts.

Which explains why some government offices have closets full of outdated computers, still in the original boxes, and others have a thousand year supply of toilet paper. And why a certain military base has gazebos on every available square foot of open ground.

Until we can get people to be individually responsible for their actions there is no way that we can even begin to address eliminating poverty.

I know someone who would debate that hotly – claiming that people who are over their ears in debt need “help.” It isn’t their fault.

We allow abortion, our schools pass out condems, so now free sex has little consequence. Should an unwanted child be conceived to a teenage girl we will feed and care for it, or abort it, all without any social stigma or disgrace. The father is quite often not held responsible, so there is little incentive for him to step up and due his duty. Most poverty is centered around single parent families and often of young unwed mothers.

The system is designed to create such situations. If you subsidize, say rice, you’ll get so much rice that the fair market value falls below the cost to produce it (as it has.)

If you subsidize out-of-wedlock pregnancies and single-parent families, guess what?

We will certainly always have the mentally retarded and the physically disabled that we should take care of, but as a society we should make a much stronger effort to keep down the rate of “accidental” pregnancies by teaching abstenance, injecting moral standards and supporting traditional families as opposed to accepting alternative living arrangements.

You mean teach values?

But in order to teach values, you have to teach that some things are wrong! And if you do that, people who do wrong things will “suffer reduced self-esteem.”

A few more facts about poverty. While single moms tend to be more likely to live in poverty with their kids, those kids also tend to commit more crimes, be more violent, and they also tend to have higher rates of divorce and they tend to spawn more illegitimate children. This is not a race issue, it crosses all races (at least in the US).

Of course!

We subdize the very behavior that creates poverty – and are absolutely astounded to find that we get more poverty as a result!

 

[vern_humphrey]

How can we hold spending at current levels when we have promised social security and medicare and medicaid and prescription drug benefits to the upcoming generation of retiring boomers? All those benefits are to be paid by their working children. Meeting those obligations will require tax increases or benefit cuts.

Many of us couldn’t save for our old age, because the government took 15.3% of our income off the top in the form of FICA tax. Our children will pay more, and be less able to save. And our grandchildren worse off.

And one day the system will collapse (and maybe in the not too distant future) and the Ruling Class will say, “It’s your own fault! You didn’t save enough.”

 

[melensdad]

How can we hold spending at current levels when we have promised social security and medicare and medicaid and prescription drug benefits to the upcoming generation of retiring boomers? All those benefits are to be paid by their working children. Meeting those obligations will require tax increases or benefit cuts.

Maybe we should not make promises that we cannot keep?

Afterall we are not paying for those promises/obligations, we simply make them and then dump the problems onto the next generation.

In fact, I’d have to ask if it is even moral to do such a thing

 

[vern_humphrey]

Maybe we should not make promises that we cannot keep?

Afterall we are not paying for those promises/obligations, we simply make them and then dump the problems onto the next generation.

In fact, I’d have to ask if it is even moral to do such a thing

John Maynard Keynes was the great guru of deficit spending. And people would say to him, “But in the long run it will all collapse.” And Keynes would reply, “In the long run, we’re all dead.”

Begorra if he wasn’t right! Keynes is dead, and we’re left holding the bag.

 

[JimG]

Maybe we should not make promises that we cannot keep?

Afterall we are not paying for those promises/obligations, we simply make them and then dump the problems onto the next generation.

In fact, I’d have to ask if it is even moral to do such a thing

Current tax income goes to pay current retirees. That means it is the current workers who are paying current retirees and medicaid and medicare recipients.

When current workers get old enough to retire (the retirement age keeps increasing) they will have to be supported by the then current workers–their children and grandchildren. And there may not be enough of them to keep up the payments.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Current tax income goes to pay current retirees. That means it is the current workers who are paying current retirees and medicaid and medicare recipients.

You’re correct, although it’s the FICA tax that supports Social Security and Medicare, not the income tax.

When current workers get old enough to retire (the retirement age keeps increasing) they will have to be supported by the then current workers–their children and grandchildren. And there may not be enough of them to keep up the payments.

With a pyramid scheme like Social Security, you have only three options:

1. Expand the base – bring in more young people to pay the retirees.
2. Raise the FICA tax – already the most repressive tax we have.
3. Collapse.

 

[MilesXpisti]

We don’t have a laissez-faire approach to education. In fact, the government builds the schools, hires the teachers, selects the text books, sets the curriculum, and runs the whole thing with tax money.

I was using the more philosophical meaning of laissez-faire:

A practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action.
vern humphrey:

And this is wrong, how?

It’s not, so long as the economic nature of a society is geared toward agrarianism or industrialization. But the information-based economy of today has bred an entirely new economic dynamic, which extreme specialization. Today, individuals do not learn an assortment of jobs in their profession, merely the function of one little cog in a vast and ultimately entropic machine. When this is the case, assignment and control of occupation according to aptitude is absolutely vital.
vern humphrey:

And parents could sell their children for seven years, rigt? And an apprentice who ran away could be pursued and recaptured by his master, right?

That’s a tad melodramatic. I’m not suggesting indentured servitude, merely that the use of the master/apprentice system would ensure that people can be the very best at what they do, and begin to be productive individuals much earlier. Currently, most people, even after entering college, change their majors numerous times. But even assuming they don’t, and choose an occupation that requires post-graduate work, they don’t end their education until their mid-twenties and often only a kind of apprenticeship (such as a doctor interning at a hospital) are they even given complete leeway. That’s a lot of wasted time and energy to invest in someone.
vern humphrey:

And people would be locked in to their jobs – not daring to aspire to better themselves.

Oh, here we go! The tale of the disenfranchised proletariat whose creativity and dreams are crushed by the viscious, unfeeling weight of the engine of society. People need to realize that it’s only the vast wealth of Western society that provides for such freedom of choice in occupation, or the novel idea that one actually has to enjoy their job. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s not going to last forever. Not a long time, even.