Popular vote ramblings

[vertical_doug]

Indeed, indeed.


The other issue in this thread is how to deal with the less fortunate. Do you create dependency on handouts or provide people with the basics or the means to get by? Social security largely arose out of the ashes of the first world war when maimed soldiers returned home unable to work or discovering there was not work for them despite their service. With a depression 10 or so years later, this system was entrenched. Full employment is an admirable goal, but even in the post-World War 11 boom there was not full employment (at least in this country). With technological change (robots wielding cars as opposed to humans for example), economic change (globalisation...car production went off-shore where it was cheaper meaning a loss of jobs for people and robots) and so on, people get left behind. While new jobs get created (inventing the technology to build the robots to weld the cars for example), this doesn't cater for everyone. With increased focus on making money in corporates, more and more people get left behind. I think its the role of Government to bring the less fortunate along. We cannot claim to be a successful society unless we look after those less fortunate. This requires a safety net and this requires funding by way of an equitable taxation system (which includes large corporates paying their way and not using expensive accountants, lawyers and lobbyists to enable them to reduce their tax bill to zero).

True in this type of system there is welfare dependency and welfare abuse. In the first, you can lead a horse to water etc and in the second, you need a system that captures those abusing it. But, I think this is a better system than one that takes pride in those from the middle upwards with a particular focus on those who are successful and ignores those people suffering at the bottom. You need a system to bring everyone along for the ride. What the ideal system is, I have no idea. Maybe there isn't an ideal system. But, I think you need that safety net in place.

I agree with this. There has always been multi-generational poverty, welfare and other programs did not create it. These programs have also not increased it. If you go back to 'why' LBJ started the 'War on Poverty', it was because poverty rates were around 20% in the US. His 'war' drove the poverty level down around 13.5% where it is today.

The GOP has tried to roll back many of these programs. In the long term, this will be a disaster for the US. Reduction in SNAP, Medicaid and other programs is impacting the number of children who are growing up in poverty. Research shows these children will become adults with greatly reduced circumstances.

A big part of the miindset is everything is seen through the lens of merit. If its merit, then I earned it, I can keep and I treat it like a scarce resource. If the mindset is outcomes are a mixture of merit plus the opportunity the overall prosperity of society provides, then the resource is in abundance and the view should be on how more opportunity can be created and shared.

or as a sport analogy, if you are born on third, you can probably score a run. If you aren't even allowed in the ballpark, you probably aren't going to score.

[ABiCi]

I think quite the opposite. These programs don’t make the severity of poverty worse, they make it better. Ease the pain.

What these programs do is increase the number of participants in poverty.

Why do you believe this?

The data is pretty clear that the introduction of the welfare state saw a reduction in the numbers of people living in poverty.

Read this: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~noy/300texts...omparative.pdf

Have a look at the graph on page 83. There is a pretty clear relationship between levels of government social expenditure and levels of poverty. The US spends the least and has the most people in poverty.

From the conclusion:

"Comparative cross-national poverty rankings suggest that U.S. poverty rates are at or near the top of the range when compared with poverty rates in other rich countries... What seems most distinctive about the American poor, especially poor American single parents, is that they work more hours than do the resident parents of other nations while also receiving less in transfer benefits than in other countries."

The low minimum wages and low social expenditure in the US are not helping people get out of poverty. The higher minimum wages and social expenditure in other countries is working to do that.

But yeah, you guys are the land of freedom and opportunity and there couldn't possibly be anything to learn from the rest of the world...

[monadnocky]

The correlation between lower rates of poverty and higher state spending has been a robust consistent feature of democracies since World War 2. Plus, there have been dramatic reductions in poverty after the introduction of welfare programs in every country ever to introduce a comprehensive welfare program. The notion that "entitlements keep people in poverty" is the drumbeat of those who wish to further concentrate wealth in their hands.
Admittedly, Wikipedia's not the best source, but it's a place to get started for primary sources:

Welfare's effect on poverty - Wikipedia

The_Antipoverty_Effect_of_Government_Spending_Vector_Graph.svg.png

Absolute_Poverty_Rates_before_and_after_the_introduction_of_welfare.svg.png

[Dallas Tex]

Why do you believe this?

Why? Because that is what I see everyday and that is what I've seen my entire life. In my experience, once folks get addicted to government dependency it is very, very difficult to get off. Government dependency robs people of their motivation and basically enslaves them to continued dependency.

No one flourishes living a life made possible by government handouts. In fact the opposite is true, I'd say most experience a very unfulfilling life of just getting by after being denied the opportunity to struggle and experience the learning & growing that only comes from living through real life failures and successes.

My point is the more comfortable our country makes government dependency, the more government dependent people our country will produce. And you are denying these folks the right to struggle, battle, and face life without permanent training wheels. The struggles, pain, agony of growth and self-betterment are part of life---part of a good life that is rewarding and well lived--- helping folks avoid the pains & struggles of life is doing them a disservice that will last a lifetime.

Let me clarify my point of what you quoted above, as both you & Monadocky took it in a way which was not at all intended: "What these programs do is increase the number of participants in poverty." Change poverty to 'government dependence'. That's what I wrote, but not at all what I intended. My bad....

"Read this: 404 Not Found " and please don't 'link me to death' . I'm sure there are other 'studies' that refute the one that you found that you agree with. I participate in these threads as a discussion, not a link battle. An occasional link, maybe, but the value of the 'Captain Link' persona is completely lost on me.

[Dallas Tex]

The notion that "entitlements keep people in poverty" is the drumbeat of those who wish to further concentrate wealth in their hands.

That's not been my experience and definitely not my reasoning. I don't think that I would obtain more wealth or pay less taxes if all government dependence programs were ended tomorrow. I don't think my financial position would change in any way. Is your interest in developing more democratic voters? That's a very simplistic approach to this discussion.

My concern is with the folks who will get caught up & entangled in the trap of government dependency. My life puts me in daily contact with good folks of every imaginable position in life. Its been my personal experience that the folks that are busting ass daily and really experiencing the pain that is life's struggle are happier, better parents, better neighbors, better people, and more personally fulfilled than those who have avoided the struggle via dependency.

[ABiCi]

Why? Because that is what I see everyday and that is what I've seen my entire life. In my experience, once folks get addicted to government dependency it is very, very difficult to get off. Government dependency robs people of their motivation and basically enslaves them to continued dependency.

No one flourishes living a life made possible by government handouts. In fact the opposite is true, I'd say most experience a very unfulfilling life of just getting by after being denied the opportunity to struggle and experience the learning & growing that only comes from living through real life failures and successes.

My point is the more comfortable our country makes government dependency, the more government dependent people our country will produce. And you are denying these folks the right to struggle, battle, and face life without permanent training wheels. The struggles, pain, agony of growth and self-betterment are part of life---part of a good life that is rewarding and well lived--- helping folks avoid the pains & struggles of life is doing them a disservice that will last a lifetime.

Let me clarify my point of what you quoted above, as both you & Monadocky took it in a way which was not at all intended: "What these programs do is increase the number of participants in poverty." Change poverty to 'government dependence'. That's what I wrote, but not at all what I intended. My bad....

"Read this: 404 Not Found " and please don't 'link me to death' . I'm sure there are other 'studies' that refute the one that you found that you agree with. I participate in these threads as a discussion, not a link battle. An occasional link, maybe, but the value of the 'Captain Link' persona is completely lost on me.

Yeah, I think it is understandable that when you say "poverty" we take you to mean "poverty".

So, considering your clarification, can we summarise your position to be that you are more concerned about people being dependent on government than you are about people living in poverty and that you would rather not follow policies that have clearly been successful at getting people out of poverty because you think it is better for those people in poverty to have to struggle through it?

All this comes down to you seeing poverty as a moral failing. It isn't. You would rather people be "free" to work overtime in jobs with wages so low that they are still living in poverty than be "enslaved" by things like government provided health care and adequate social safety nets that are the norm in the rest of the developed world. It is hard for me not to see this as really messed up.

This is before we even get to the point of how much of a problem welfare dependency actually is... but why bother provide you with the data on all this when when you take pride in trusting your gut rather than following the evidence?

[Dallas Tex]

So, considering your clarification, can we summarise your position to be that you are more concerned about people being dependent on government than you are about people living in poverty and that you would rather not follow policies that have clearly been successful at getting people out of poverty because you think it is better for those people in poverty to have to struggle through it?

Yes. YES.

Poverty is a temporary state, one that is surmounted daily in our country by hard working folks that make good decisions. I've seen good folks come here illegally, with no english. And do what they have to do to be successful, raise good families, and support themselves - all the time building the skillset & attitude needed by experiencing the value of sacrifice, hard work, and pain. I've also seen folks that have lived here for generations trapped in government dependency.

Governmental Dependency often becomes a permanent state. It denies its victims the ability to participate in real life where nothing is free and gains are made by hard work, suffering, and pain. These lessons are best learned when young. Avoidance of life's lessons until adulthood increases the challenge.

And we may need to define the term 'getting out of poverty'. If you are out of poverty but still dependent on the government for food & shelter, I would define that as still being in 'poverty'.

[Dallas Tex]

This is before we even get to the point of how much of a problem welfare dependency actually is... but why bother provide you with the data on all this when when you take pride in trusting your gut rather than following the evidence?

Its been my experience that good folks like you lack certain level of skepticism and cynicism when it comes to anything wrapped in the term 'study' if you agree with its conclusion.

[ABiCi]

Yes. YES.

Poverty is a temporary state, one that is surmounted daily in our country by hard working folks that make good decisions. I've seen good folks come here illegally, with no english. And do what they have to do to be successful, raise good families, and support themselves - all the time building the skillset & attitude needed by experiencing the value of sacrifice, hard work, and pain. I've also seen folks that have lived here for generations trapped in government dependency.

Governmental Dependency often becomes a permanent state. It denies its victims the ability to participate in real life where nothing is free and gains are made by hard work, suffering, and pain. These lessons are best learned when young. Avoidance of life's lessons until adulthood increases the challenge.

And we may need to define the term 'getting out of poverty'. If you are out of poverty but still dependent on the government for food & shelter, I would define that as still being in 'poverty'.

We are talking about people being able to eat, have shelter, have clean water, receive medical treatment, have an education. that's what it means to get people out of poverty. You would rather people live in poverty than receive that support from the government, because you think it is good for people to have to suffer through it. Builds character.

No doubt there are people every day who, despite all obstacles, are able to drag themselves out of poverty. These people are the exception, not the rule. There are plenty more who are also working hard, making sacrifices, suffering, and not getting anywhere through no fault of their own. For the majority poverty doesn't lead to much else other than malnutrition, disease, violence and an early death.

The only moral failing here is that of a society that is able to ensure that everyone within it has the necessities of a basic and dignified life but chooses instead to deny it.

Its been my experience that good folks like you lack certain level of skepticism and cynicism when it comes to anything wrapped in the term 'study' if you agree with its conclusion.

The irony...

[GrantM]

Its been my experience that good folks like you lack certain level of skepticism and cynicism when it comes to anything wrapped in the term 'study' if you agree with its conclusion.

My experience is that skepticism and cynicism are not the same as critical thinking.

-g

[vertical_doug]

Yes. YES.

Poverty is a temporary state, one that is surmounted daily in our country by hard working folks that make good decisions. I've seen good folks come here illegally, with no english. And do what they have to do to be successful, raise good families, and support themselves - all the time building the skillset & attitude needed by experiencing the value of sacrifice, hard work, and pain. I've also seen folks that have lived here for generations trapped in government dependency.

Governmental Dependency often becomes a permanent state. It denies its victims the ability to participate in real life where nothing is free and gains are made by hard work, suffering, and pain. These lessons are best learned when young. Avoidance of life's lessons until adulthood increases the challenge.

And we may need to define the term 'getting out of poverty'. If you are out of poverty but still dependent on the government for food & shelter, I would define that as still being in 'poverty'.

If I try to understand this, you are not against government programs that try to help people living in poverty as long as the recipients try to improve their lot in life, but are against people who give up, and become permanent dependents.

With this in mind, FREE and Reduced School lunches for the poor should be fine as long as children are attending school. Correct? 37% of Stuyvesant High School is on the program. I expect many of these children although poor now, to grow up to be adults who can contribute to society.

If a couple is unfortunate and has a child who has long term care needs, the healthcare will bankrupt them. For them to be on some form of assistance should not be an issue? As long as they are still trying, it is just unlikely given their luck of the draw, they can ever escape government dependency, or a dependency of some sort.

I don't think you'd begrudge either of these cases?

As with any program, nothing is 100% effective. But if a program can help move some people out, I still think it is worth while.

No man is an island, and as I have written before, everyone's success is a combination of their own effort plus the opportunity society gives them. I think the social programs can help on the opportunity side, and it is up to the individual to apply the effort. Some succeed, some don't. Some families for dysfunction of their own and larger communities, fail . It doesn't mean we should stop trying to help as a nation.

[ABiCi]

Glenn, remember that time you made a simple statement of "fact" (that the US was the most free country in the world with the best social mobility) and I then proceeded to present you with every single major academic effort to chart freedom and social mobility, and how every one of them said the same thing, that the US is not in fact the most free country nor the one that offers the best chance at upward mobility, that instead countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and basically the whole of Europe scored consistently better? Do you remember how I used a whole range of different sources, including some of the more conservative think tanks in the US, sources that had been criticised for the pro-US slant in scoring? Do you remember how even then those rankings still had the US trailing behind the rest of the developed world?

All of those countries scored better in large part because of their efforts at reducing poverty and providing a decent social safety net. They have better public education systems than the US. They have universal public health care. They have better rights and conditions for workers, higher minimum wages.

Poverty reduction works. The evidence is there all around you. I'm not the one here with the problem processing data to come to reasoned conclusions.

Your world view is based on a pile of lies. Your ignorance is willful. Your moralising is hypocritical and disgusting. In short it is, as your President would say, sad.

[ABiCi]

If I try to understand this, you are not against government programs that try to help people living in poverty try to improve their lot in life, but are against people who give up, and become dependents.

With this in mind, FREE and Reduced School lunches for the poor should be fine as long as children are attending school. Correct? 37% of Stuyvesant High School is on the program. I expect many of these children although poor now, to grow up to be adults who can contribute to society.

If a couple is unfortunate and has a child who has long term care needs, the healthcare will bankrupt them. FOr them to be on some form of assistance should not be an issue? As long as they are still trying, it is just unlikely given their luck of the draw, they can ever escape government dependency, or a dependency of some sort.

I don't think you'd begrudge either of these cases?

Clearly that couple should have made better decisions like not having a child with special needs that they couldn't care for on their limited wages. Bankruptcy will be a valuable lesson to them about the importance of making good decisions in life.

[theflashunc]

Yes. YES.

Poverty is a temporary state, one that is surmounted daily in our country by hard working folks that make good decisions. I've seen good folks come here illegally, with no english. And do what they have to do to be successful, raise good families, and support themselves - all the time building the skillset & attitude needed by experiencing the value of sacrifice, hard work, and pain. I've also seen folks that have lived here for generations trapped in government dependency.

It's almost as if there are systemic forces at work that, no matter how hard someone works or what they do, opportunities do not magically open their doors. If poverty is spanning generations of families or ethnic groups, it would imply deeper social and economic forces are at work no? Things like job discrimination, redlining, inequitable educational opportunities, the gamut of forces at play that every day are a limit to those who don't make it.

Not just "Oh, those people are lazy and okay with government programs."

[Dallas Tex]

Your world view is based on a pile of lies. Your ignorance is willful. Your moralising is hypocritical and disgusting. In short it is, as your President would say, sad.

You seem rather upset, exceeding the level that a difference of opinions on an online thread would warrant. Everything ok? Does this dependency thing hit home for you? Sincerely, not trying to upset anyone with differing opinions.

[ABiCi]

You seem rather upset, exceeding the level that a difference of opinions on an online thread would warrant. Everything ok? Does this dependency thing hit home for you? Sincerely, not trying to upset anyone with differing opinions.

I see today you set deflector shields to "patronising".

Realising that there are people out there who honestly think millions should suffer deprivations of the most basic necessities of life to teach them a moral lesson is upsetting.

[Dallas Tex]

It's almost as if there are systemic forces at work that, no matter how hard someone works or what they do, opportunities do not magically open their doors. If poverty is spanning generations of families or ethnic groups, it would imply deeper social and economic forces are at work no? Things like job discrimination, redlining, inequitable educational opportunities, the gamut of forces at play that every day are a limit to those who don't make it.

Not just "Oh, those people are lazy and okay with government programs."

I'd say the government dependency IS one of the systemic forces that you're speaking of. Lazy? No. Unprepared & unguided resulting from failures of community or family to equip their children to operate successfully in the world - yes. A paternalistic society that provides an alternative to figuring out life at an early age - yes, systemic.

[Dallas Tex]

I see today you set deflector shields to "patronising".

Realising that there are people out there who honestly think millions should suffer deprivations of the most basic necessities of life to teach them a moral lesson is upsetting.

No, that last post seemed out of sorts for you.

Suffering is part of life. Postponing the suffering that will occur in every life only makes it worse & more intense.

Programs that allow able bodied men & women to avoid the painful lessons of how to support yourself & act as a responsible person are what is upsetting.

Can you see any damage or downside to a social program that monetizes & incentives young women to have babies as teenagers? Can you acknowledge any of the lost opportunity every single time a person 'opts out' of responsibility, accountability, and a life well lived for a life of dependency?

It doesn't change my life, my money, my taxes, my anything one way or another. My concern is for the good folks who were deprived of the opportunity to become more and exceed their circumstances.

[zachateseverything]

I'd say the government dependency IS one of the systemic forces that you're speaking of. Lazy? No. Unprepared & unguided resulting from failures of community or family to equip their children to operate successfully in the world - yes. A paternalistic society that provides an alternative to figuring out life at an early age - yes, systemic.

Why do you consistently differentiate between community and government?

[Dallas Tex]

Why do you consistently differentiate between community and government?

Because I acknowledge them as two separate entities. Do you have a different view?