Two in Three Adults Worldwide Are Financially Illiterate

justabubba said:

TANF and Federal Welfare | Downsizing the Federal Government

you have described the problem quite well
now, what is the solution

Click to expand...

One suggestion is to stop funding each such household in place and as is. If they are deemed to be a qualified childcare provider then they should work as one, paid by the state for taking care of the children of others in need of childcare assistance so that they too can work. That alone would help in many cases. It makes no sense to pay 4 such households when you could pay one which then cares for the children of all 4 of them.

ttwtt78640 said:

It is hard to find documentation on the combined effects of all (72?) federal "safety net" programs. Many are "stacked" such that one person/household can draw from more than one and for varying periods of eligibility. As far as outright and immediate "cause" I would say (educated guess) that about 1 in 4 gets such help from a single program as a direct result of an out of wedlock childbirth - in other words, prior to that event they were not eleigiible for that particular aid program.

Click to expand...

Sorry, i have a tough time believing people are having children for the benefits.

When such programs require a depedent child to qualify then it does not take much research (or imagination) to find some that will act to add that qualification to their application.

Click to expand...

See above.

For example I once quit a lousy job, applied for UI and was denied benefits. I was told that I needed to be laid off due tp "lack of work" in order to get UI. I got a 9-day (lousy) job through a temp agency. Since I was then laid off due to "lack of work", I drew UI for over 50 consecutive weeks (counting federal extensions) it is easy to not get hired (3 times per week) if that keeps a check coming in.

Click to expand...

Cool story bro!

Once you are told how to get (qualify for) what you want (a government check) many will do just that.

Click to expand...

If a person is eligible to receive assistance, they just might accept it? How thought-provoking!


TANF and Federal Welfare | Downsizing the Federal Government

Cato huh? That settles it!:lol:

Lafayette said:

Claptrap yourself - sarcasm in debate is not an acceptable response.

For your clearly necessitated edification: OECD: Adult Educational Attainment Level

Note all the countries since WW2, playing catch-up to the US (especially those devastated by WW2), that have done so successfully. (In fact, Canada demonstrates even better achievement.) Which will only continue for as long as American kids who do graduate with a Tertiary Degree (only 35% of the total secondary school graduates) face a debt-penalty that either shuts them out of a tertiary education or for which they incur on average $30K in debt.

Why? Because tertiary-education is nearly free, gratis and for nothing - considered an investment in the future for an entire nation.

American ideologues refuse this basic truth out of deep attchment to the status-quo - that is, an obstinancy without reflection, to contain "privilege to thos who deserve it". That is neither the way nor the reason, I point out again, that the US decided a century ago that secondary-schooling should be free, gratis and for nothing FOR ALL!

Which the Troglodyte Replicants refuse to admit, acknowledge and even less admire ...

Click to expand...

Note all those countries since WW2 who haven't caught up with the US and never will despite 30 plus years of "free" education. Germany started in 1970s. Yet still lags behind the US despite that 30 years of "free" education.

Canada's system is much like the US. It's not "free".

The two leading systems in the world for tertiary-education is the very system that is DOING exactly the opposite of what you want. Imagine that.

Secondary education is not free, gratis and nothing for all. All pay taxes for it. Every parent and non parent pays income taxes (federal, state, and local) and property taxes in some form (even renters as it's baked into your rent). Every few years local school districts always put up School tax levys up for vote.

So while you think you know what you are talking about.. it's you being the Troglodyte as you haven't actually been in the real world.

Lafayette said:

Money DOES solve the problem - let's make no mistake of that fact. Income Disparity is the prime example - far too much of it going to far, far too few.

Ever since the days of Reckless Ronnie and his hatchet job on Upper-Income Taxation. That History of US income tax-rate levels, specifically from the Reagan Administration in the 1980s, shows ipso-facto the reason for America's continued Income Disparity - the worst of any developed nation in the world. Howzat?

See the Gini Coefficient since WW2 Diagram. Again, look at the value from the 1980s onward.

Q E D.

Click to expand...

LOL. So you have no edvidence that adding another $1t to US educational system will actually improve it. So you go to GINI and some bashing of Ronald Reagan which has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with education. US spending 6.9% of it's GDP on education.. no other OECD country does that. Maybe you need to be looking at this..

US OECD report.

While US lags in some things these are things that can't be fixed by money as the US spends 6.9% of it's GDP on education. More then Germany, France, and others. US issues are not money related, it's organizational issues.

austrianecon said:

LOL.

US spending 6.9% of it's GDP on education.. no other OECD country does that. Maybe you need to be looking at this..

Click to expand...

Glad you're still laughing, because I dispute your reason for doing so. (Btw, some other countries do in fact spend more on education.)

Go here: OECD: Percentage of National Wealth Spent on Education (2008).

Note on the infographic that Canada has traditionally spent about 1% less than the US. But my previous infographic showed that more Canadians have achieved a better Tertiary-level Education score than Americans - not that much more, but still more.

What does that tell us? That the magnitude of money spent is important, but not the most important. How it is spent is far more crucial. And the PISA-results indicate how well it is spent in terms of number of Post-secondary Educational Diplomaed Achievement.

And, as I never tire of showing, the PISA-results indicate on the Secondary-school level how lamentable the results are - see the Key PISA Findings for Education. Read'em and weep.

The US is 36th out of 60 countries ...

PS: But in terms of military expenditures, Uncle Sam is the greatest!

austrianecon said:

The two leading systems in the world for tertiary-education is the very system that is DOING exactly the opposite of what you want. Imagine that.

Secondary education is not free, gratis and nothing for all.

Click to expand...

Nonsense on both counts. You are confusing everything about what a nation should and should not do.

And yet, one must presume that you are American, who will not not say one damning word about how Uncle Sam pissed down a rathole trillions of dollars in the Middle-east.

Such expenditures (aka "social investments") should be made at home first and foremost. We have ample resources in our current budget were we simply to reduce the DoD-sinkhole.

Social Investments are the kind you hate, like everthing that "smells like a handout". You probably think as well that the 10% of households that garner nearly half the National Income generated is rightfully theirs as well. When, in fact, it is due to Reckless-Reagan's absurd reductions in upper-income taxation. They must be done away with, and the nation can institute a Progressive Tax at all levels of income.

Social Investments are intended to bring fairness and equitablity to "all the people" and not just a select few. They are intended to give people a kick-start in life, and there are a sufficient number of Americans who need dearly that boost.

Of course, these words will find blind-eyes to many who read this debate ...

ttwtt78640 said:

It makes no sense to pay 4 such households when you could pay one which then cares for the children of all 4 of them.

Click to expand...

I know many women here in France who "babysit" the children of working-women. This practice is regulated by the state, you need a certificate - and if complaints are made that certificate can be withdrawn. The person will never again be able to provide such a service.

Unfortunately, the women who need such a service have different requirements - particularly hours. So, some women spencialize in these specific needs (of their client). Some women try to do everything, which means they likely do everything badly. Child-care can be very intensive work.

I admire the women who have both the competence and the caring-concern for children that perform the service admirably well. But, I know for a fact, that before regulation by authorities here in France, there were many who were incompetent and treated the children badly ...

ttwtt78640 said:

Yep, that is why public, rather than private, investment is being made in "green" energy.

Click to expand...

Yes, long after university-funded scientifists from around the globe studied first-hand the problem and made their results an "issue" that has finally been taken seriously.

Then, and only then, do the Dollar-Heads try to jump in to make yet another unneeded megabuck on it ...

Lafayette said:

Yes, long after university-funded scientifists from around the globe studied first-hand the problem and made their results an "issue" that has finally been taken seriously.

Then, and only then, do the Dollar-Heads try to jump in to make yet another unneeded megabuck on it ...

Click to expand...

If the public funds were used for research then I would agree. As it stands, it is mostly just more crony capitalism.

ttwtt78640 said:

If the public funds were used for research then I would agree. As it stands, it is mostly just more crony capitalism.

Click to expand...

Public funding for research is strong in the US, and it feeds into university coffers (who are amongst the first to patent/register any real usage).

Still, the exorbitantly high cost of an (other than state institution) degree at a private university is lamentable.

Once again, this "problem" demonstrates just another way in which the Reaganauts managed to wrench away tertiary education from its real "owner" - that is, we the sheeple. There should be a state-option postsecondary education available at rock-bottom costs (subventioned by the Federal Government and available to all and sundry).

Freedom of speech requires freedom of education (meaning low-cost), otherwise what we get is the blathering of boneheaded poliitical candidates on both sides of the aisle in legislatures (state and national). The perdicament is lamentable. Not one bona-fide discourse about what ails America, except from Bernie ...

I forgot to mention that an EU National Health Service negotiating the acceptance and distribution price of medicinal drugs can alter significantly their costs, especially as regards a country that has drugs furnished at "market prices".

See that fact verified recently by Reuters here.

Lafayette said:

Public funding for research is strong in the US, and it feeds into university coffers (who are amongst the first to patent/register any real usage).

Still, the exorbitantly high cost of an (other than state institution) degree at a private university is lamentable.

Once again, this "problem" demonstrates just another way in which the Reaganauts managed to wrench away tertiary education from its real "owner" - that is, we the sheeple. There should be a state-option postsecondary education available at rock-bottom costs (subventioned by the Federal Government and available to all and sundry).

Freedom of speech requires freedom of education (meaning low-cost), otherwise what we get is the blathering of boneheaded poliitical candidates on both sides of the aisle in legislatures (state and national). The perdicament is lamentable. Not one bona-fide discourse about what ails America, except from Bernie ...

Click to expand...

I see, in order to fight the effects of crony capitalism we need more crony capitalism.

Of course not.

But if we are to get away from the abject "Crony Capitalism" that was assured and enforced by Reckless Ronnie's hatchet-job on Upper Income Taxation and is perpetrated by the present Plutocrat Clique trying to maintain the "status-quo" at all costs, then we - as a nation - need badly a Common Set of Values.

Which has been defined and expressed in Europe since McCarthy was amusing America with his ramblings about Communism in the 1950s.

In reaction to the Russian Bear on its doorstep, the EU was moved to adopt a Social Democracy based upon a market-economy but with regulatory control that assured that Income Disparity was not flagrant. Which was the point made by Piketty in his book "Capital". And is portrayed succinctly in this infographic: Piketty's History Top 10Percent Pre-Tax Income Share – Europe and US. As the infographic shows, Income Disparity is flagrant.

Which simply shows that Income Disparity is not anything new to the US. It has been embedded in the economy for a long, long time. And why?

Because the ability to become rich became a cornerstone of American cultural beliefs. So the desire followed quickly and became an American icon.

Is there anything wrong with such an "icon"? Only if that ability is concentrated unfairly in a particularly small group constituted by only 10% of the American population. The consequence is income unfairness, which need not occur if taxation was progressive in the US - and which is certainly not the case since it is very much a flat-tax (as seen in this infographic titled Upper-Income Total Effective Tax Rates ...