How is poverty best eliminated?

imagep · Aug 22, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
It is the illogical ideas at play. If these single mothers would just get married, then their husbands will be presented with employment........because (magic).......the jobs will happen because they are married!

Let's ignore the fact that a huge portion of those men left because they were unemployed......but of course, the reason they are unemployed is because of their own personal, inherent failings....wink wink.

I totally get your point, but it is a fact that employers are more likely to hire someone who is married over someone who isn't. Most employers look for stable workers, and marriage is a sign of stability.

Aside from that, I do agree that we need more good paying jobs, and that things like family values and education will not magically create those jobs.

imagep · Aug 22, 2014

US Conservative said:
Which side, in our American arena of politics, do you think exploits poverty for political reasons the most?

It's pretty much equal.

I can't tell you how many conservatives have told me that they don't want a higher minimum wage because "those people don't deserve more". I even had one conservative poster on this forum tell me that he didn't want socialized health insurance because he didn't want "those people to have what he has (insurance)."

kamikaze483 · Aug 22, 2014

These poll results are very interesting.

Thom Paine · Aug 22, 2014

imagep said:
In the past poverty existed due to stuff being scarce. In the future stuff is likely to be much less scarce. So why is the elimination of poverty "irrational foolishness"?

I'll agree that there will always be people who make poor financial and lifestyle choices, thus there will always be some sort of poverty, but for the most part it's possible to eliminate it.

Thank you for the pleasant response

My reply is your comment (highlighted above). Education alone, and particularly higher education, is not the solution; nor is the gifting of money and benefits; due precisely to your statement.

The direction which might be somewhat instrumental, but will not solve the situation, is a concerted effort toward attitude adjustment. Teaching people they can improve their personal financial situations with smarter choices and 'never quit' directed efforts; no matter how menial their starting point.

Have a great day "I"

Thom Paine

ocean515 · Aug 22, 2014

Glen Contrarian said:
1. And your reply is simplistic, because you're not taking into consideration the total tax burden of the state. For instance, Washington's total tax burden is not that much less than California's, and California's total tax burden per capita is LESS than that of Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, West Virginia, or even Louisiana.

2. Just because that is the current way that the poverty is measured does not mean it's the best way, just as the current way of measuring unemployment is not necessarily the best way to measure unemployment..

...and in either case, the majority of the nations with the worst poverty rates are RED states. That much, sir, is indisputable.

I don't understand why you keep jumping into the pool. It's full of lava, not water.

Tax Burden by state? First, the simplistic analysis you posted is from 12 years ago. Even then, Washington was ranked #32, while California was ranked #17. I'd hardly call that "not much less".

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -- Residents in which states pay the most in taxes? The figures below are from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation for 2002, the latest data available.

Try this one, from 2011, which doesn't take into account the most recent income and sales taxes Progressive shoved through. You will note, in 2011, California was ranked #4, and Washington was ranked #27.

Annual State-Local Tax Burden Ranking FY 2011 | Tax Foundation

As to poverty rate. Supplemental Poverty Rate is the standard by which all measurements are used today. Who cares what you think? You can't use figures, and then throw them out when they don't suit you. You eliminate any remaining credibility when you do that. At this point your tank is past being on fumes, it's on absolute ZERO.

Finally, as expected, you throw down the "oh yeah, well red/blue, so there".

When presented facts, you've scrambled all over the place trying to defend an agenda and ideology that is proving a failure. You've gone from how grand the great socialized countries of Europe are, but then when confronted with facts about their condition today, launch into the Progressive meme of Red State/Blue State, which has been thoroughly debunked and relegated to the sewer from which it crawled. Then you have gone on a completely uninformed trip through facts that aren't actually supporting your beliefs, but are actually refuting them.

CG, I give you credit for passion about what you want to be true. However, the fact is, your displaying the tactics of a pure ideologue, who will reject everything, and clutch at anything, to hold to your position.

It didn't work. You're in Lava my friend, not water. You should have taken a moment to notice the difference.

ocean515 · Aug 22, 2014

polgara said:
Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

The problem has been getting larger for many years, and we appear to be in the end stages of constant alarms going off and lights blinking red! Will they pay attention before it's too late? I doubt it, and when it finally implodes, maybe they will actually learn that there really is no "free lunch." Everything has a price, and all the new taxes they hope to levy on productive people won't be enough to go around. Another fantasy bites the dust... :shock:

Hi Polgara :2wave:

This is what's happening. I don't know if the foundation of the business community in California is strong enough to shrug off the damaging impacts of the Progressive forces in Sacramento. When a state the size of California ranks at or near the top in unemployment in the country, that is a catastrophic statistic. How such a thing gets so ignored is remarkable to me.

The very sad part is how harmful all this Progressive ideology has been on the most vulnerable people living in this state. Talk about lip service from politicians. Massive unemployment among minorities, etc, and then a hearty welcome to illegal aliens who are taking their jobs.

It's the most disjointed, illogical, mind bending thing to watch here.

That's why I call California a Progressive worst nightmare. It's the end game of their agenda, and they don't want anyone to see it.

BretJ · Aug 22, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
I think you meant to say that marriage reduces poverty, not that it is a "predictor of poverty"....as if it is the cause of poverty....but an indicator of a LACK of poverty (I don't know why I keep having to correct your statement!).

If marriage causes less poverty, then it because of household income, ie, somehow, magically, marriage causes employment...JOBS!

The point still remains, you have the cart in front of the horse.....single income homes are in poverty because of the lack of income, ie, our economy requires 2 earners to have any chance of getting out of poverty.....and even with 2 earners, a huge number of those households remain in poverty.

It is due ENTIRELY to declining wages.

You Bell Curvers ALWAYS make this a morality based argument and veer away from the economics.

The morality and the economics kind of intersect. When both parents (married or not) are involved in the education/guidance/parenting of a child, it does two things IMHO. It reduces the economic burden of having to juggle work with parenting and in doing so, is more likely to create an environment where the child is better able to succeed morally and economically.

Don't get me wrong. There are some awesome single parents that raise their kids right and married parents that suck at it. But in reality, that is primarily a result of how they were raised. Is it a far stretch to say that in order to break one part of the poverty cycle is to somehow motivate parents to do their part as parents?

Glen Contrarian · Aug 22, 2014

ocean515 said:
I don't understand why you keep jumping into the pool. It's full of lava, not water.

Tax Burden by state? First, the simplistic analysis you posted is from 12 years ago. Even then, Washington was ranked #32, while California was ranked #17. I'd hardly call that "not much less".

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -- Residents in which states pay the most in taxes? The figures below are from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation for 2002, the latest data available.

Try this one, from 2011, which doesn't take into account the most recent income and sales taxes Progressive shoved through. You will note, in 2011, California was ranked #4, and Washington was ranked #27.

Annual State-Local Tax Burden Ranking FY 2011 | Tax Foundation

As to poverty rate. Supplemental Poverty Rate is the standard by which all measurements are used today. Who cares what you think? You can't use figures, and then throw them out when they don't suit you. You eliminate any remaining credibility when you do that. At this point your tank is past being on fumes, it's on absolute ZERO.

Finally, as expected, you throw down the "oh yeah, well red/blue, so there".

When presented facts, you've scrambled all over the place trying to defend an agenda and ideology that is proving a failure. You've gone from how grand the great socialized countries of Europe are, but then when confronted with facts about their condition today, launch into the Progressive meme of Red State/Blue State, which has been thoroughly debunked and relegated to the sewer from which it crawled. Then you have gone on a completely uninformed trip through facts that aren't actually supporting your beliefs, but are actually refuting them.

CG, I give you credit for passion about what you want to be true. However, the fact is, your displaying the tactics of a pure ideologue, who will reject everything, and clutch at anything, to hold to your position.

It didn't work. You're in Lava my friend, not water. You should have taken a moment to notice the difference.

First, a sincere thanks for pointing out my reference was from 11 years ago - if I'd seen that, I certainly wouldn't have used that reference. I was flat wrong on that one, for its information was certainly outdated. And I've got to give you credit for providing a good reference showing the current difference in tax burdens between the states.

Your reference was not per capita, but showed the tax burden as a percentage of state income. Here's a 2012 reference showing the top ten highest and lowest per capita. The top states are blue (though two or three of them have Republican governors), and the only blue state in the bottom ten was New Hampshire...but the article also points out that NH has the highest property taxes in the nation.

That said, I didn't back off from the discussion of Europe - far from it! I'm more than happy to continue discussing Europe, including how their economies are recovering even though they screwed up by adopting austerity measures (which the head of the IMF now frankly admits), albeit their recovery is much slower than America's since we went the stimulus route and thus got out of the recession (if not its longer-lasting effects) much more quickly.

I shifted to California in my discussion with you because that's where you seemed most determined in your belief that progressive (AKA Keynesian) economics are a sure path to economic doom-and-gloom. And just as repeating 2+2=4 doesn't mean that it's not true, the fact that I keep bringing up the obvious disparities between red and blue states does not at all detract from the fact that the numbers indicate that blue states are generally more economically successful than red states.

You really should get out some, go Down South and see how the people there live, especially the ones in the small towns that make up most of the conservative base that is the Deep South. Yes, there is certainly much poverty in California - no argument there. But as I've pointed out before, CA's economy is by most metrics improving. We'll see in a few years, won't we?

And one more thing - here's some more red/blue state comparisons for you. Yes, there are some blue states that are as bad as the red states...but the overall trend is unmistakable:
- violent crime and property crime are generally significantly more common in red states than in blue states.
- the percentage of students that are low-income in red states is generally significantly higher than in blue states.
- Residents of red states were significantly more likely to lack money for food than residents of blue states.
- Residents of red states are significantly more likely to be receiving government benefits than are residents of blue states.
- This county-by-county map shows red state residents are significantly more likely to be in poverty than residents of blue states.
- Adults in red states are significantly less likely to have a bachelor's degree or higher than are residents of blue states.

I can go on and on and on showing how red states are worse off than blue states, including in divorce rates, teenage pregnancy rates, homicide rates...you name it. But here's the kicker: these states are not poor because they are red - they are poor because they are generally rural, and the more rural a state, the more likely that state is to elect conservative politicians.

On a side note, I remember when I first started pointing out these kinds of differences between red states and blue states, and the only - repeat, the only - metric where blue states were generally worse than red states was in drug use. Of course, that does not mean that more drugs equals better prosperity. It just means that those in blue states have more money and more disposable income.

ocean515 · Aug 22, 2014

Glen Contrarian said:
First, a sincere thanks for pointing out my reference was from 11 years ago - if I'd seen that, I certainly wouldn't have used that reference. I was flat wrong on that one, for its information was certainly outdated. And I've got to give you credit for providing a good reference showing the current difference in tax burdens between the states.

Your reference was not per capita, but showed the tax burden as a percentage of state income. Here's a 2012 reference showing the top ten highest and lowest per capita. The top states are blue (though two or three of them have Republican governors), and the only blue state in the bottom ten was New Hampshire...but the article also points out that NH has the highest property taxes in the nation.

That said, I didn't back off from the discussion of Europe - far from it! I'm more than happy to continue discussing Europe, including how their economies are recovering even though they screwed up by adopting austerity measures (which the head of the IMF now frankly admits), albeit their recovery is much slower than America's since we went the stimulus route and thus got out of the recession (if not its longer-lasting effects) much more quickly.

I shifted to California in my discussion with you because that's where you seemed most determined in your belief that progressive (AKA Keynesian) economics are a sure path to economic doom-and-gloom. And just as repeating 2+2=4 doesn't mean that it's not true, the fact that I keep bringing up the obvious disparities between red and blue states does not at all detract from the fact that the numbers indicate that blue states are generally more economically successful than red states.

You really should get out some, go Down South and see how the people there live, especially the ones in the small towns that make up most of the conservative base that is the Deep South. Yes, there is certainly much poverty in California - no argument there. But as I've pointed out before, CA's economy is by most metrics improving. We'll see in a few years, won't we?

And one more thing - here's some more red/blue state comparisons for you. Yes, there are some blue states that are as bad as the red states...but the overall trend is unmistakable:
- violent crime and property crime are generally significantly more common in red states than in blue states.
- the percentage of students that are low-income in red states is generally significantly higher than in blue states.
- Residents of red states were significantly more likely to lack money for food than residents of blue states.
- Residents of red states are significantly more likely to be receiving government benefits than are residents of blue states.
- This county-by-county map shows red state residents are significantly more likely to be in poverty than residents of blue states.
- Adults in red states are significantly less likely to have a bachelor's degree or higher than are residents of blue states.

I can go on and on and on showing how red states are worse off than blue states, including in divorce rates, teenage pregnancy rates, homicide rates...you name it. But here's the kicker: these states are not poor because they are red - they are poor because they are generally rural, and the more rural a state, the more likely that state is to elect conservative politicians.

On a side note, I remember when I first started pointing out these kinds of differences between red states and blue states, and the only - repeat, the only - metric where blue states were generally worse than red states was in drug use. Of course, that does not mean that more drugs equals better prosperity. It just means that those in blue states have more money and more disposable income.

Per capita is a bogus measure, especially when one considers that California has the highest supplemental poverty rate in the nation. There is no reason to use cherry picked, hand selected spin to try to hang on to your ideological position. The issue is tax burden. Heck, there is a couple million illegal aliens living in California who have been welcomed with open arms by Progressives, so how do they count for anything?

Consider this, I'm not adding in the massive fee burden that Progressive legislators have burdened citizen with in California. For example, how much does it cost to register a car in Washington? $60, $80/yr? In California, the same car could be $500/yr

I'm done here. You're clutching at straws, you've presented bogus arguments, and you've not even taken the time to make sure the data you present is reasonable or relevant. You're demonstrating that all you're doing is going on a crazed search to find anything that even hints at backing your ideological position.

The Red/State Blue state meme is a joke. If you need to be remain married to that, then by all means, clutch to it tightly. It's meaningless but obviously important to Progressives. (Just hope the next election cycle your Blue states stay blue, otherwise, the meme vaporizes, doesn't it?)

Have a good day.

polgara · Aug 22, 2014

ocean515 said:
Hi Polgara :2wave:

This is what's happening. I don't know if the foundation of the business community in California is strong enough to shrug off the damaging impacts of the Progressive forces in Sacramento. When a state the size of California ranks at or near the top in unemployment in the country, that is a catastrophic statistic. How such a thing gets so ignored is remarkable to me.

The very sad part is how harmful all this Progressive ideology has been on the most vulnerable people living in this state. Talk about lip service from politicians. Massive unemployment among minorities, etc, and then a hearty welcome to illegal aliens who are taking their jobs.

It's the most disjointed, illogical, mind bending thing to watch here.

That's why I call California a Progressive worst nightmare. It's the end game of their agenda, and they don't want anyone to see it.

But people all over the world do see it, ocean. Some with the same mindset are probably silently applauding our eventual demise, since 5000 years of history has shown them that every government that has tried this has gone down the tubes. I'm sure it royally p***es off the powers that be that it's taking so long to accomplish their goal to bring us into their one-world-government fold, though, because it's costing them a lot of money, which may explain why it's being accelerated lately. Would you have thought these things could happen 30 or 40 years ago? I wouldn't have believed it if someone had told me! And this will be the first time in history that so many modern governments are all facing the same problems, at the same time, for the same reasons. The next few years will be __________ *fill in the blank*

Meanwhile, other governments are actively working to take away our "favored nation" status, which will probably "officially" bankrupt us, since our debt is so great that it would take over 1000 years to be repaid, even at 100 percent taxation of everybody! Is this all happening by coincidence? Why of course it is! :mrgreen:

Glen Contrarian · Aug 22, 2014

ocean515 said:
Per capita is a bogus measure, especially when one considers that California has the highest supplemental poverty rate in the nation. There is no reason to use cherry picked, hand selected spin to try to hang on to your ideological position. The issue is tax burden. Heck, there is a couple million illegal aliens living in California who have been welcomed with open arms by Progressives, so how do they count for anything?

Consider this, I'm not adding in the massive fee burden that Progressive legislators have burdened citizen with in California. For example, how much does it cost to register a car in Washington? $60, $80/yr? In California, the same car could be $500/yr

I'm done here. You're clutching at straws, you've presented bogus arguments, and you've not even taken the time to make sure the data you present is reasonable or relevant. You're demonstrating that all you're doing is going on a crazed search to find anything that even hints at backing your ideological position.

The Red/State Blue state meme is a joke. If you need to be remain married to that, then by all means, clutch to it tightly. It's meaningless but obviously important to Progressives. (Just hope the next election cycle your Blue states stay blue, otherwise, the meme vaporizes, doesn't it?)

Have a good day.

Let's say for a moment that you're absolutely, 100% right about California. I strongly disagree, but let's go with that. What about the rest of the blue states who are doing quite well with much the same economic philosophy that California is adopting? Why are they not spiraling down to the economic dustbin of history?

FYI, up until about 1998 or so, it cost $400/yr to register a car in Washington. We cut the cost way down...and at the same time raised the gasoline tax in order to pay for it IIRC.

And did you not see that I said that red states are NOT poor because they are red? Would I say that, if I were only "pushing a (partisan) meme"? I provided you an answer why this is, why it is NOT the conservatives' fault that red states are worse off than blue states. Have you got a better answer?

Again, if I am only pushing a partisan meme, WHY would I say that red states are NOT generally poor because of conservative governance? WHY would I say that, if I'm just some partisan progressive hack?

ocean515 · Aug 22, 2014

polgara said:
But people all over the world do see it, ocean. Some with the same mindset are probably silently applauding our eventual demise, since 5000 years of history has shown them that every government that has tried this has gone down the tubes. I'm sure it royally p***es off the powers that be that it's taking so long to accomplish their goal to bring us into their one-world-government fold, though, because it's costing them a lot of money, which may explain why it's being accelerated lately. Would you have thought these things could happen 30 or 40 years ago? I wouldn't have believed it if someone had told me! And this will be the first time in history that so many modern governments are all facing the same problems, at the same time, for the same reasons. The next few years will be __________ *fill in the blank*

Meanwhile, other governments are actively working to take away our "favored nation" status, which will probably "officially" bankrupt us, since our debt is so great that it would take over 1000 years to be repaid, even at 100 percent taxation of everybody! Is this all happening by coincidence? Why of course it is! :mrgreen:

Would I have thought these things would have been happening now 30 - 40 years ago? No, I definitely would not have bet on it. However, I can't keep forgetting where we have been as a country throughtout our history. We just about tore ourselves in half in 1860, and we did some really stupid stuff in the early 1900's related to prohibition. We survived all that.

One thing that I can't escape from, and I may be a hopeless romantic, but this country was settled and founded by exceptional people. Even our lifetimes, exceptional people have risked everything to get here legally. It's only recently that this one-world, progressive insanity has come along. Just like prohibition.

I feel very strongly that sanity will return, and the era of PC stupidity, internet based propaganda, and manipulated minions will draw to it's inevitable end.

ocean515 · Aug 22, 2014

Glen Contrarian said:
Let's say for a moment that you're absolutely, 100% right about California. I strongly disagree, but let's go with that. What about the rest of the blue states who are doing quite well with much the same economic philosophy that California is adopting? Why are they not spiraling down to the economic dustbin of history?

FYI, up until about 1998 or so, it cost $400/yr to register a car in Washington. We cut the cost way down...and at the same time raised the gasoline tax in order to pay for it IIRC.

And did you not see that I said that red states are NOT poor because they are red? Would I say that, if I were only "pushing a (partisan) meme"? I provided you an answer why this is, why it is NOT the conservatives' fault that red states are worse off than blue states. Have you got a better answer?

Again, if I am only pushing a partisan meme, WHY would I say that red states are NOT generally poor because of conservative governance? WHY would I say that, if I'm just some partisan progressive hack?

Not only did California increase auto fees, the also have the highest state gasoline "taxes" in the country. The list goes on an on. You are wise to let it be.

The thing is GC, I just don't buy into the Red State/Blue State comparison whatsoever. We are one country. Each state has it's resources and it's position. Some are rural and need more than others to support federally mandated expenses . Some are extremely urban, and generate tremendous revenues without a corresponding need for federal revenue in return. Others a combination.

Who pays more, and who gets more is not a reflection of political party defined by the last election cycle. One could be a red state with big cities dominating the political landscape and voting blue. Who cares? It's not a meaningful measure of anything important other than to try and say "we are better than you" based on an always changing political landscape.

US Conservative · Aug 22, 2014

imagep said:
I can't tell you how many conservatives have told me that they don't want a higher minimum wage because "those people don't deserve more".

I bet you read that wrong somehow. Im thinking the comment may have been more in the spirit of "they make what they are worth to the market". Just a guess.

US Conservative · Aug 22, 2014

ocean515 said:
I don't understand why you keep jumping into the pool. It's full of lava, not water.

Tax Burden by state? First, the simplistic analysis you posted is from 12 years ago. Even then, Washington was ranked #32, while California was ranked #17. I'd hardly call that "not much less".

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -- Residents in which states pay the most in taxes? The figures below are from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation for 2002, the latest data available.

Try this one, from 2011, which doesn't take into account the most recent income and sales taxes Progressive shoved through. You will note, in 2011, California was ranked #4, and Washington was ranked #27.

Annual State-Local Tax Burden Ranking FY 2011 | Tax Foundation

As to poverty rate. Supplemental Poverty Rate is the standard by which all measurements are used today. Who cares what you think? You can't use figures, and then throw them out when they don't suit you. You eliminate any remaining credibility when you do that. At this point your tank is past being on fumes, it's on absolute ZERO.

Finally, as expected, you throw down the "oh yeah, well red/blue, so there".

When presented facts, you've scrambled all over the place trying to defend an agenda and ideology that is proving a failure. You've gone from how grand the great socialized countries of Europe are, but then when confronted with facts about their condition today, launch into the Progressive meme of Red State/Blue State, which has been thoroughly debunked and relegated to the sewer from which it crawled. Then you have gone on a completely uninformed trip through facts that aren't actually supporting your beliefs, but are actually refuting them.

CG, I give you credit for passion about what you want to be true. However, the fact is, your displaying the tactics of a pure ideologue, who will reject everything, and clutch at anything, to hold to your position.

It didn't work. You're in Lava my friend, not water. You should have taken a moment to notice the difference.

Well stated across the board.

US Conservative · Aug 22, 2014

ocean515 said:
Hi Polgara :2wave:

This is what's happening. I don't know if the foundation of the business community in California is strong enough to shrug off the damaging impacts of the Progressive forces in Sacramento. When a state the size of California ranks at or near the top in unemployment in the country, that is a catastrophic statistic. How such a thing gets so ignored is remarkable to me.

The very sad part is how harmful all this Progressive ideology has been on the most vulnerable people living in this state. Talk about lip service from politicians. Massive unemployment among minorities, etc, and then a hearty welcome to illegal aliens who are taking their jobs.

It's the most disjointed, illogical, mind bending thing to watch here.

That's why I call California a Progressive worst nightmare. It's the end game of their agenda, and they don't want anyone to see it.

Absolutely, being surrounded by liberals in CA and noting how blind they were to the consequences of their action (and inaction) while being firmly incapable of intelligently making a case is what made me a conservative. Its disturbing to see whats been done here, and people who have never been here beyond hollywood or disney land think they have the skinny on this state-which is about 10% of the nations population, and has over 30% of the nations welfare recipients.

ocean515 · Aug 22, 2014

US Conservative said:
Absolutely, being surrounded by liberals in CA and noting how blind they were to the consequences of their action (and inaction) while being firmly incapable of intelligently making a case is what made me a conservative. Its disturbing to see whats been done here, and people who have never been here beyond hollywood or disney land think they have the skinny on this state-which is about 10% of the nations population, and has over 30% of the nations welfare recipients.

When one considers that @ 1 out of 8 people living in this country call California home, and almost 25% of those people are considered to be living in poverty, it's beyond the imagination to grasp how liberal/progressives don't have their feet held to the fire to explain. Instead, they love to talk about what an amazing job Jerry Brown has done "righting the ship". WTH?

Brown passes his grand "Public Employee Pension Reform" plan through the legislature, and takes victory laps with it before the last election cycle. And then this week, CalPers votes to add more "qualifying" income to the mix to establish retirement benefits, and Brown complains.

What the hell? If his reform did the job, how did CalPers get away with more of their outrageous pension spiking BS? Well, the truth is, Brown knew his reform was meaningless, but he passed it just to get taxpayers off his back, rally some votes, and show the debt ratings companies he was "serious" about finances in the state. Obviously he wasn't.

It's my boggling my friend. Absolutely mind boggling.

US Conservative · Aug 22, 2014

ocean515 said:
When one considers that @ 1 out of 8 people living in this country call California home, and almost 25% of those people are considered to be living in poverty, it's beyond the imagination to grasp how liberal/progressives don't have their feet held to the fire to explain. Instead, they love to talk about what an amazing job Jerry Brown has done "righting the ship". WTH?

Brown passes his grand "Public Employee Pension Reform" plan through the legislature, and takes victory laps with it before the last election cycle. And then this week, CalPers votes to add more "qualifying" income to the mix to establish retirement benefits, and Brown complains.

What the hell? If his reform did the job, how did CalPers get away with more of their outrageous pension spiking BS? Well, the truth is, Brown knew his reform was meaningless, but he passed it just to get taxpayers off his back, rally some votes, and show the debt ratings companies he was "serious" about finances in the state. Obviously he wasn't.

It's my boggling my friend. Absolutely mind boggling.

And how many Californians know about this? They want their bullet trains!

Wheres Tom McClintock when you need him?

The Mark · Aug 22, 2014

cpwill said:
The available social statistics do not support that claim. The most powerful factor is the family situation.

I didn't say it would be easy. It might even involve removing the child from the bad family situation.

But sometimes I wonder if "the families don't support" is just an excuse.

cpwill · Aug 22, 2014

The Mark said:
I didn't say it would be easy. It might even involve removing the child from the bad family situation.

and putting them where? The state is usually no better if not worse.

But sometimes I wonder if "the families don't support" is just an excuse.

:shrug: you are free to wonder it. However the success or failure of a childs' parents at forming a stable family is (by all we are able to measure) the most dominating determinant.

The Mark · Aug 22, 2014

cpwill said:
and putting them where? The state is usually no better if not worse.

I quite agree. But what choice is there, unless YOU know of some way to get all or the majority of parents to be better?

cpwill said:
:shrug: you are free to wonder it. However the success or failure of a childs' parents at forming a stable family is (by all we are able to measure) the most dominating determinant.

I think the key is stability and support, not necessarily family.

Obviously family being stable and supportive is the best solution, but that simply isn't possible in all cases, so relying on it exclusively seems inadvisable.

cpwill · Aug 22, 2014

The Mark said:
I quite agree. But what choice is there, unless YOU know of some way to get all or the majority of parents to be better?

:shrug: I'm not about to allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. I would strip away current disincentives for family formation, and replace them with positive incentives as best I could. Ultimately this isn't a political problem - it's a social one, that spills into the realm of politics.

I think the key is stability and support, not necessarily family.

From a social science standpoint that's like saying that it isn't so much breathing that's important, it's getting oxygen into your system. Family is the greatest vehicle for creating a stable and supportive life for a child.

Obviously family being stable and supportive is the best solution, but that simply isn't possible in all cases, so relying on it exclusively seems inadvisable.

Sure and that's why we have such things as orphanages.

The Mark · Aug 22, 2014

cpwill said:
:shrug: I'm not about to allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. I would strip away current disincentives for family formation, and replace them with positive incentives as best I could. Ultimately this isn't a political problem - it's a social one, that spills into the realm of politics.

Seems reasonable, but the specifics will be where contention arises, I suspect.

cpwill said:
From a social science standpoint that's like saying that it isn't so much breathing that's important, it's getting oxygen into your system. Family is the greatest vehicle for creating a stable and supportive life for a child.

Agreed.

But as the point appears to be that "family" isn't doing it's assigned tasks correctly, and I suspect any measures to improve matters in that area may take decades, some kind of stopgap measure must be used.

cpwill said:
Sure and that's why we have such things as orphanages.

Depending how they are run, that may help.

Glen Contrarian · Aug 23, 2014

ocean515 said:
Not only did California increase auto fees, the also have the highest state gasoline "taxes" in the country. The list goes on an on. You are wise to let it be.

The thing is GC, I just don't buy into the Red State/Blue State comparison whatsoever. We are one country. Each state has it's resources and it's position. Some are rural and need more than others to support federally mandated expenses . Some are extremely urban, and generate tremendous revenues without a corresponding need for federal revenue in return. Others a combination.

Who pays more, and who gets more is not a reflection of political party defined by the last election cycle. One could be a red state with big cities dominating the political landscape and voting blue. Who cares? It's not a meaningful measure of anything important other than to try and say "we are better than you" based on an always changing political landscape.

Really? That's your defense? To pretend that there's no screamingly obvious difference in the standards of living between urban blue states and rural red states, no matter how much hard data you're shown?

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - all the hard data in the world can't change your mind on AGW, either.

And btw, if you'll recall, I have NEVER said (or even implied), "we're better than you", but instead pointed out that it is NOT, repeat NOT conservative governance that directly causes rural red states to have such an obviously lower standard of living, but the fact that they are rural states means that they are more conservative, and as such will elect more conservative candidates.

That is NOT something that a "liberal shill" would say. That's something that someone would say if that someone were trying to find the real cause without pointing fingers at this or that person or group of persons.

But if it's people who say "we're better than you" that really tick you off, then I suggest you take a gander at sites like Breitbart and Redstate et al, and see how many there are Absolutely Sure they are better than any liberal could possibly be. Okay? Please learn to be as cynical of your own side as you are of liberals.

ocean515 · Aug 24, 2014

Glen Contrarian said:
Really? That's your defense? To pretend that there's no screamingly obvious difference in the standards of living between urban blue states and rural red states, no matter how much hard data you're shown?

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - all the hard data in the world can't change your mind on AGW, either.

And btw, if you'll recall, I have NEVER said (or even implied), "we're better than you", but instead pointed out that it is NOT, repeat NOT conservative governance that directly causes rural red states to have such an obviously lower standard of living, but the fact that they are rural states means that they are more conservative, and as such will elect more conservative candidates.

That is NOT something that a "liberal shill" would say. That's something that someone would say if that someone were trying to find the real cause without pointing fingers at this or that person or group of persons.

But if it's people who say "we're better than you" that really tick you off, then I suggest you take a gander at sites like Breitbart and Redstate et al, and see how many there are Absolutely Sure they are better than any liberal could possibly be. Okay? Please learn to be as cynical of your own side as you are of liberals.

I didn't offer a defense. I wrote that it's a bogus Progressive Meme. Again, the Red State Blue State issue is dead. It's an invented Progressive Maching meme that is full of rediculous conclusions, causations, and downright twisted thinking that only those desperate to draw some kind of Enlightened vs. redneck biblethunper conclusion use it.

If one looks at the history of states over decades, the colors can and do switch. If one looks at how these colors are assigned, it's based on recent elections, which is a stupid and meaningless way to then go on to make the claims Progressives are attempting to make.

Drop it with me. I reject the comparison. The Red State/Blue State meme is nothing but a fabricated Progressive Meme that has no meaningful use. Put R Vs. D meme in the desperation column.

How is poverty best eliminated?

What of the following does the best for eliminating poverty in the world?

Private property.

Unions.

Personal liberty.

Entitlements.

Taxation

Freedom from coercion/association.

Government programs/policies.

The free market.

Class struggle.

Working for oneself.

Villiage Idiot

Villiage Idiot

Sporadic insanity normal.

Sporadic insanity normal.

Sporadic insanity normal.