• 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!

Brain Studies Highlight Importance of Anti-Poverty Policies for Children

JC Callender said:
Did you read my list of benefits? If so, why is anyone living on $2/day? And you don't need college to get out of poverty, but you can always join the military and get it for free.

Btw, let's say there were no government programs and you were struggling and someone wrote you an $8,000 check, could you do something with that to maybe help yourself out of poverty? Could you buy a decent used car and a suit to go on job interviews? If it were me and someone gave me $8,000, I would be utterly floored! I would consider it a new lease on life.
Click to expand...

You've dodged the costs of living and everything else.
$9,139
According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2014–2015 school year was $31,231 at private colleges, $9,139 for state residents at public colleges, and $22,958 for out-of-state residents attending public universities.
Click to expand...
Imagine you get $8000, now, factor in rent, a child, etc, etc, etc..
 
libertybird said:
Like I said before, funding for government services and education have gone up through the years, yet we see no positive change in poverty or education amongst all income groups....
Click to expand...

Please support your claim with stats showing per capita spending for government services and education adjusted for inflation and the resulting change, or lack of change, in poverty or education.

As others have pointed out, since the welfare "reform" changes of the mid-1990s, the amount of government assistance for low income adults over a lifetime has been reduced because the length of time one can receive benefits has been reduced.
 
JC Callender said:
How much does each U.S. citizen deserve (dollar amount)?
Click to expand...

Now you want to move into a discussion on a universal basic income?
A Universal Basic Income Is The Bipartisan Solution To Poverty We've Been Waiting For | Co.Exist | ideas + impact
It all depends on the current cost of living.
A UBI is coming, I'm calling it.
The first is that work isn't what it used to be. Many people now struggle through a 50-hour week and still don't have enough to live on. There are many reasons for this—including the heartlessness of employers and the weakness of unions—but it's a fact. Work no longer pays. The wages of most American workers have stagnated or declined since the 1970s. About 25% of workers (including 40% of those in restaurants and food service) now need public assistance to top up what they earn.
Click to expand...
The second: it's likely to get worse. Robots already do many menial tasks. In the future, they'll do more sophisticated jobs as well. A study last year from Carl Frey and Michael Osborne at Oxford University found that 47% of jobs are at risk of computerization over the next two decades. That includes positions in transport and logistics, office and administration, sales and construction, and even law, financial services and medicine. Of course, it's possible that people who lose their jobs will find others. But it's also feasible we're approaching an era when there will simply be less to do.
Click to expand...
The third is that traditional welfare is both not what it used to be and not very efficient. The value of welfare for families with children is now well below what it was in the 1990s, for example. The move towards means-testing, workfare—which was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996—and other forms of conditionality have killed the universal benefit. And not just in the U.S. It's now rare anywhere in the world that people get a check without having to do something in return. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, that makes the income assistance system more complicated and expensive to manage. Up to up to 10% of the income assistance budget now goes to administrating its distribution.
Click to expand...
The libertarian right likes basic income because it hates bureaucracy and thinks people should be responsible for themselves. Rather than giving out food stamps and health care (which are in-kind services), it thinks people should get cash, because cash is fungible and you do what you like with it.
Click to expand...
The exact details of basic income still need to be worked out, but it might work something like this: Instead of welfare payments, subsidies for health care, and tax credits for the working poor, we would take that money and use it to cover a single payment that would give someone the chance to live reasonably. Switzerland recently held an (unsuccessful) is planning to hold a referendum on a basic income this year, though no date is set. The proposed amount is $2,800 per month.
Click to expand...
But would it actually work? The evidence from actual experiments is limited, though it's more positive than not. A pilot in the 1970s in Manitoba, Canada, showed that a "Mincome" not only ended poverty but also reduced hospital visits and raised high-school completion rates. There seemed to be a community-affirming effect, which showed itself in people making use of free public services more responsibly.
Click to expand...
Experiments outside the U.S. have been more encouraging. One in Namibia cut poverty from 76% to 37%, increased non-subsidized incomes, raised education and health standards, and cut crime levels. Another involving 6,000 people in India paid people $7 month—about a third of subsistence levels. It, too, proved successful.
Click to expand...
 
In your quote it says their culture is that of social cohesion and equality. The U.S. has so many different cultures that it is practically impossible to have everyone on the same page. Different races, religions, cultures etc. teach different values. And some of these values (or lack of) can lead to more poverty. Also, here are some articles that debunk your claims about Scandinavia: How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich | Libertarianism.org

"Many people abroad think that this was the triumph of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which somehow found the perfect middle way, managing to tax, spend, and regulate Sweden into a more equitable distribution of wealth—without hurting its productive capacity. And so Sweden—a small country of nine million inhabitants in the north of Europe—became a source of inspiration for people around the world who believe in government-led development and distribution.

But there is something wrong with this interpretation. In 1950, when Sweden was known worldwide as the great success story, taxes in Sweden were lower and the public sector smaller than in the rest of Europe and the United States. It was not until then that Swedish politicians started levying taxes and disbursing handouts on a large scale, that is, redistributing the wealth that businesses and workers had already created. Sweden’s biggest social and economic successes took place when Sweden had a laissez-faire economy, and widely distributed wealth preceded the welfare state."

Another article: The Scandinavian Socialism Argument Debunked - The great liberal myth
"A study by Swedish group Timbro compared the GDP of various European Union nations to those of individual states in the United States. As stated by the study:

“If the EU were a part of the United States of America, would it belong to the richest or the poorest group of states?”

Denmark:

If Denmark were one of the US states, it would rank tenth among the poorest states for per capita GDP.

Finland:

Finland would come in fifth among the poorest if it were a US state.

Sweden:

Sweden would be the seventh-poorest as a state of the US.

Additionally, the study found that the United States as a whole ranks higher in economic output per person than every European Union nation except for the tax haven economy of Switzerland. Denmark, Sweden and Finland all ranked significantly lower than the United States. Norway was not included in the study as it is not a member of the EU.

 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
Please support your claim with stats showing per capita spending for government services and education adjusted for inflation and the resulting change, or lack of change, in poverty or education.
Click to expand...

education-spending-u-s-1950-and-2013.jpgtotal-federal-spending-per-capita.wdp.jpg
 
libertybird said:
In your quote it says their culture is that of social cohesion and equality. The U.S. has so many different cultures that it is practically impossible to have everyone on the same page. Different races, religions, cultures etc. teach different values. And some of these values (or lack of) can lead to more poverty. Also, here are some articles that debunk your claims about Scandinavia: How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich | Libertarianism.org

"Many people abroad think that this was the triumph of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which somehow found the perfect middle way, managing to tax, spend, and regulate Sweden into a more equitable distribution of wealth—without hurting its productive capacity. And so Sweden—a small country of nine million inhabitants in the north of Europe—became a source of inspiration for people around the world who believe in government-led development and distribution.

But there is something wrong with this interpretation. In 1950, when Sweden was known worldwide as the great success story, taxes in Sweden were lower and the public sector smaller than in the rest of Europe and the United States. It was not until then that Swedish politicians started levying taxes and disbursing handouts on a large scale, that is, redistributing the wealth that businesses and workers had already created. Sweden’s biggest social and economic successes took place when Sweden had a laissez-faire economy, and widely distributed wealth preceded the welfare state."

Another article:


"A study by Swedish group Timbro compared the GDP of various European Union nations to those of individual states in the United States. As stated by the study:

“If the EU were a part of the United States of America, would it belong to the richest or the poorest group of states?”

Denmark:

If Denmark were one of the US states, it would rank tenth among the poorest states for per capita GDP.

Finland:

Finland would come in fifth among the poorest if it were a US state.

Sweden:

Sweden would be the seventh-poorest as a state of the US.

Additionally, the study found that the United States as a whole ranks higher in economic output per person than every European Union nation except for the tax haven economy of Switzerland. Denmark, Sweden and Finland all ranked significantly lower than the United States. Norway was not included in the study as it is not a member of the EU.
Click to expand...

When you start making outlandish claims like "Finland would be the one of the poorest states! lalalala"
First of all, that doesn't take into account the healthcare programs in those countries, the education costs, the benefits people receive.. When you actually account for that, how much do you think americans are worth?
 
David_N said:
When you start making outlandish claims like "Finland would be the one of the poorest states! lalalala"
First of all, that doesn't take into account the healthcare programs in those countries, the education costs, the benefits people receive.. When you actually account for that, how much do you think americans are worth?
Click to expand...

When you tax the hell out of the working class and use up all the wealth created in the free market to provide healthcare and services, sure, everyone gets equal stuff. But per capita income and GDP is much lower than the US.
 
JC Callender said:
Sorry, not reading your long, tiresome post. Simple question, what dollar amount should a person be entitled to at the very least?
Click to expand...

The proposals vary widely and a UBI adjusts based on the current cost of living.
I can't give you an exact amount.
 
libertybird-Those charts, which lack a link, do not prove your point. The top chart doesn't seem to be adjusted for inflation. Is the bottom chart showing education spending per capita or overall spending? Where is the chart showing that the spending is ineffective?
 
libertybird said:
When you tax the hell out of the working class and use up all the wealth created in the free market to provide healthcare and services, sure, everyone gets equal stuff. But per capita income and GDP is much lower than the US.
Click to expand...

The poverty level is much lower.
 
Hard Truth said:
libertybird-Those charts, which lack a link, do not prove your point. The top chart doesn't seem to be adjusted for inflation. Is the bottom chart showing education spending per capita or overall spending? Where is the chart showing that the spending is ineffective?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought I posted the links: http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/update-federal-spending-per-capita-analysis.pdf
" After adjusting for population and inflation, the data clearly show that federal outlays have, with a few exceptions, grown at a staggering pace since 1948 "

They are inflation adjusted. The second chart is per capita, like you asked.

3rd, here is a chart showing the correlation between education spending and educational levels:
dgrgr.jpg

The Impact of Federal Involvement in America's Classrooms | Cato Institute
 
And here is some sources showing how Anti-Poverty spending has not reduced poverty

1.1.jpg1.2.jpg

Source: Time for a Cease-Fire In the War on Poverty |

Charts by: Institute for Research on Poverty, Cato Institute

The above article is from Diary of a Rogue Economist originally written for Bonner & Partners.

Bill Bonner founded Agora, Inc in 1978. It has since grown into one of the largest independent newsletter publishing companies in the world. He has also written three New York Times bestselling books, Financial Reckoning Day, Empire of Debt and Mobs, Messiahs and Markets.
 
David_N said:
Funny, it started falling thanks to FDR'S "socialism"
Click to expand...

They are semi-socialist policies. And they were falling before the Great Depression and FDR's new deal. The data collected starts at 1940, which was during the war. And we al know there was an economic boom after the war. So you can't give FDR credit.
 
Last edited:
libertybird said:
The data collected starts at 1940, which was during the war. And we al know there was an economic boom after the war. So you can't give FDR credit.
Click to expand...

Oh, but FDR did lead america through the depression, and set a precedent.
 
libertybird said:
I will say that gov't spending does lower poverty *slightly*. But very slightly. It is nowhere close to eliminating it
Click to expand...

Slightly?
Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would jump nearly 40%
Click to expand...
Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% – another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.
Click to expand...
Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.
Click to expand...
 
Even the sources I used indicate that poverty lowers slightly. But not substantially.

1.2.jpg
 
David_N said:
Oh, but FDR did lead america through the depression, and set a precedent.
Click to expand...

Really, how long did the Depression last during his presidency? And are you going to give Hoover credit for starting the programs that FDR basically expanded?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom