• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

tessaesque said:
Not only did you take a flying leap off the cliff to make a lot of assumptions, but you put a lot of words into my mouth that I did not say.

I'll make this painfully clear for you, and perhaps you'll actually take the time to understand what I'm saying instead of standing on your little soap box, attacking an idea I didn't express:

1. I want to provide programs to help the poor overcome the obstacles that keep them poor, namely lack of education and job skills.
2. I never said we should remove their benefits or let children starve in the process of helping the poor acquire the above skills.
3. I never said that the poor are lazy or "parasites" or even blamed them for the lack of education or job skills.
4. My point in attacking the entitlements designed to "prevent" poverty was to point out that they don't, in fact, prevent poverty. These programs sustain people who are still living in poverty despite the money/programs.

See, I want better for the poor, and I think the programs we have no don't offer "better". I think they offer a security blanket while leaving them standing out in the cold. It doesn't solve the problem, it just makes it more tolerable.

But by all means, turn my statement into a rich vs. poor argument. Jump to conclusions. Attack me for wanting a better program and a better opportunity for people. Go ahead. It just proves you don't care what I have to say, you just want to get up there and rant away about something not only unrelated to my argument, but completely outside of any logical interpretation of what I was saying.
Click to expand...

Hypothetically speaking, say all the poor were educated and gained job skills.

I ask you the following questions:
a) Who then would do the important but low-paying skilless jobs?
b) Would there be enough good and equivalent jobs around?
 
1Perry said:
I don't know. It's not worth the effort IMO.
Click to expand...

That's your call of course. But the study referenced likey defines what they mean by the terms they use, and give a methodology. If they don't, they can be criticised for that. But, all conclusions we draw are subject to asking for some backing.
 
liblady said:
i'm not sure what you want doesn't already exist. there are many, many education and jobs skills programs for the disadvantaged. in fact, these types of programs were part of welfare reform. and in many cases, these programs ARE mandatory. what's happening now is that despite record profits, companies are not hiring. they are sitting on their cash, giving outrageous bonuses to ceos while letting the wages of the masses stagnate. that's why providing incentives to these compaines for creating jobs is a good thing.
Click to expand...

It is sad how difficult it has become to buy American. Clothes and electronics come to mind. It would be worth paying more to have higher quality products made by one's neighbors, who would then put the money back into the economy and into the tax pool. The roads in my area get worse as the houses sit empty and rot. Both share the same root cause.

We need to rethink this model, because it is not working.
 
Middleground said:
Hypothetically speaking, say all the poor were educated and gained job skills.

I ask you the following questions:
a) Who then would do the important but low-paying skilless jobs?
b) Would there be enough good and equivalent jobs around?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that we'll ever have 0% poverty. But if anybody is implying that because we can't achieve that goal we shouldn't bother trying I'd have to respectfully disagree. We will always have high schools kids, ambitionless aimless adults, and bored housewives who want simple, part-time, no stress jobs. Minimum wage and low skilled jobs are not the sole property of those in poverty.

We will also always have unemployment. Most economists think that "full employment" exists with unemployment is at about 4%. That doesn't mean that we can't help many or most of those in poverty through a restructuring of the welfare system.

The idea that there's no point because obstacles exist (which seems to be the flack I'm getting from many posters) doesn't make much sense. Nobody is looking for a program with a 100% perfect turn-around, but I think a lot of people would admit that we can create a program that does better than the status quo.
 
Helix said:
It is sad how difficult it has become to buy American. Clothes and electronics come to mind. It would be worth paying more to have higher quality products made by one's neighbors, who would then put the money back into the economy and into the tax pool.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Before long there has to be a relocalization of economies. If people are unhappy, they need to demand a change with their wallets, by either spending strategically on the most socially beneficial companies or by doing/making it themselves.

There are people out there, even in this country, who are living on poverty wages, barely scraping by financially, but are incredibly fulfilled as people, working hard and genuinely appreciating that work. They do not rely on big government and big business to furnish them with jobs and consumer goods. They are small farmers and homesteaders.
 
tessaesque said:
I'm not saying that we'll ever have 0% poverty. But if anybody is implying that because we can't achieve that goal we shouldn't bother trying I'd have to respectfully disagree. We will always have high schools kids, ambitionless aimless adults, and bored housewives who want simple, part-time, no stress jobs. Minimum wage and low skilled jobs are not the sole property of those in poverty.

We will also always have unemployment. Most economists think that "full employment" exists with unemployment is at about 4%. That doesn't mean that we can't help many or most of those in poverty through a restructuring of the welfare system.

The idea that there's no point because obstacles exist (which seems to be the flack I'm getting from many posters) doesn't make much sense. Nobody is looking for a program with a 100% perfect turn-around, but I think a lot of people would admit that we can create a program that does better than the status quo.
Click to expand...

No one has suggested that poverty can be eliminated. Only that jobs are required to reduce poverty.
 
evanescence said:
No one has suggested that poverty can be eliminated. Only that jobs are required to reduce poverty.
Click to expand...

And I never said otherwise. Not once. Literally NEVER. I just think it's pretty damned stupid to act as though saying, "WE NEED JOBS!!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT JOBS!!!" addresses even HALF of the poverty problem.
 
ok.

What was the point of saying: "I'm not saying that we'll ever have 0% poverty. . . The idea that there's no point because obstacles exist (which seems to be the flack I'm getting from many posters) doesn't make much sense. Nobody is looking for a program with a 100% perfect turn-around"?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Would the top quartile of welfare dependency suffice? Do i have to now define top quartile? You are arguing semantics.
Click to expand...

How is that measured? If you have 8 kids and all are on welfare and your daughter only has 3 kids with all on welfare, does that place the mother in the "highly dependant" catagory and not the daughter?

How is it measured?
 
Boo Radley said:
That's your call of course. But the study referenced likey defines what they mean by the terms they use, and give a methodology. If they don't, they can be criticised for that. But, all conclusions we draw are subject to asking for some backing.
Click to expand...

I looked for it. I couldn't find it. Granted I only did about 4 google pages. I found a few references to it, but not the study.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom