How is poverty best eliminated?

Cephus said:

And, in fact, they are. If all of the people stop supporting the government, the government stops existing, you cannot have a government if none of the people pay it any heed. However, so long as the people do, in general, support the government, they do not rise up to overthrow it or elect people to go to Washington to change it, then the government has a significant amount of power, at the behest of the people. The people have the power. If they choose not to exercise it, it remains the fault of the people, not the government.

And in your example, if a big powerful group comes to town and says "we have more guns and more power than you do, therefore we're just taking all of your land", of course you have to rely on the government and the power that the government wields, to save the day. After all, they're the ones who recorded your ownership of the land and your right to work it, they're the one with the military or the law enforcement agents who can come and tell that big powerful group what to go do with itself. Individuals do not have that ability, it is only through the collective decision of society and it's legal arm, the government, that the peace can be kept and wrongs, as described above, can be righted. There's got to be a balance between anarchy, which doesn't work, and totalitarianism, which doesn't work.

Click to expand...

In my view, the only role of government for a free people is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights, and that would include providing the common defense. But again, if there is to be liberty, the people assign the government the power and authority it will have. It was not intended to be the other way around.

And again when you go to your job every morning or when I open up my store or whatever to do business, neither of us are likely doing that for the benefit of humankind or to better society. We each are doing that to increase our own bank account so that we can buy groceries, pay the rent or mortgage, make the car payment, or whatever it is that we need. But in doing that, we are benefitting humankind and bettering the society we live in and indirectly enabling many others to increase their bank accounts so that they can provide for their own needs.

This is the concept that Barack Obama, and apparently most who identify as progressives, simply don't get. They think we should all be beholden to a nation that provides us with what we have and we should contribute a huge percentage of our money in taxes for the common good. And some would see that a demand that everybody look to everybody else's interests as just another form of slavery. When it comes to free enterprise, each and every one of us 'built that' and not one of us should feel obligated to somebody else just because that somebody else was doing what he/she needed to do to put supper on the table.

1. Get rid of the social-welfare programs--all of them.

2. Lower and simplify taxes. Eliminate regulations. Get government out of the way of the free market.

ronpaulvoter said:

1. Get rid of the social-welfare programs--all of them.

2. Lower and simplify taxes. Eliminate regulations. Get government out of the way of the free market.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

ronpaulvoter said:

1. Get rid of the social-welfare programs--all of them.

2. Lower and simplify taxes. Eliminate regulations. Get government out of the way of the free market.

Click to expand...

How would that get rid of poverty?

Here's an idea that I think people on the left and right can support: basic income. It would eliminate welfare programs and replace them with a direct cash transfer to every American with no exceptions. I recommend everyone who has the time should read up on it but if there is enough interest I'll assemble a big long post summarizing basic income.

Poverty is best eliminated through proper education and equal opportunity. How to do those is the question.

MildSteel said:

Poverty is best eliminated through proper education and equal opportunity. How to do those is the question.

Click to expand...

Mostly though, it comes from holding people accountable for their actions.

Cephus said:

Mostly though, it comes from holding people accountable for their actions.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. You can hold a slave accountable for his actions and he will never escape poverty. No, it's education and equal opportunity.

MildSteel said:

I don't agree. You can hold a slave accountable for his actions and he will never escape poverty. No, it's education and equal opportunity.

Click to expand...

Personally I'm focused on education.

If we have a system wherein people can choose their leaders (which we do in the US, more or less), education is the most important thing, period.

Because without education, it is much harder to understand the mad shenanigans that go on, and react properly.

MildSteel said:

I don't agree. You can hold a slave accountable for his actions and he will never escape poverty. No, it's education and equal opportunity.

Click to expand...

That's because they have no choice. A person has to be held accountable for their actions because it is the only way to improve their lot in life. They do have choices. They have to make the right ones.

The Mark said:

Personally I'm focused on education.

If we have a system wherein people can choose their leaders (which we do in the US, more or less), education is the most important thing, period.

Because without education, it is much harder to understand the mad shenanigans that go on, and react properly.

Click to expand...

Absolutely!!!! "A" for you my man!!!!

Cephus said:

That's because they have no choice. A person has to be held accountable for their actions because it is the only way to improve their lot in life. They do have choices. They have to make the right ones.

Click to expand...

No, slaves do have choices, it's just that their choices are extremely restricted relative to a person who is not so encumbered. Similarly, a person born into poverty has choices that are extremely restricted relative to a person who is born with great wealth. Although I think your point has merit in that a person should not be conditioned to a dependence on government assistance, I really don't think that focus on that aspect is a major force in lifting a person from poverty.

AlbqOwl said:

IMO, marriage DOES create jobs because the more marriage with two parent homes there is, the less crime there is and the more prosperous and stable the community will be and a better quality of life the community will have. That in turn is a powerful lure for existing businesses to move into an area and new businesses to start up.

Click to expand...

So lets see, you want to create a correlation between "crime" and "jobs" (income), but I'm sorry to inform you that "crime" (violent crime) has DECLINED to levels not seen since 1978, after the bad old crack fueled 1990's....and yet household wages have not increase for lower quintiles.....ergo, your correlation phails....as per usual.

The point still is (and it applies very much to your "ideas"):

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.

MildSteel said:

Poverty is best eliminated through proper education and equal opportunity. How to do those is the question.

Click to expand...

If everyone got a doctorate degree today, in an employable field, we would still need burger flippers.

All that would happen is wages in higher paying fields would drop, and we still wouldn't have enough "good" jobs for everyone to have one.

imagep said:

If everyone got a doctorate degree today, in an employable field, we would still need burger flippers.

All that would happen is wages in higher paying fields would drop, and we still wouldn't have enough "good" jobs for everyone to have one.

Click to expand...

I don't see education as meaning everyone having a doctorate degree. As a matter of fact, I really don't think everyone is meant for college. To me, education means training people to do useful work that they have an aptitude for. Everyone has something of value to contribute, if their natural aptitudes are nurtured properly.

BTW, that's a funny avatar!

MildSteel said:

I don't see education as meaning everyone having a doctorate degree. As a matter of fact, I really don't think everyone is meant for college. To me, education means training people to do useful work that they have an aptitude for. Everyone has something of value to contribute, if their natural aptitudes are nurtured properly.

BTW, that's a funny avatar!

Click to expand...

I agree. But I did want to point out that education is the key to getting out of poverty on an individual level, much more so than on a society level (although I would err on the side of having an over educated population than an under educated one).

You can't really apply micro level solutions to macro level problems. To solve macro level problems, you need macro level solutions.

The only two macro solutions that I can come up with is to have more jobs and the production associated with them, and to have a system that ensures a distribution system which is based upon production and merit, more-so-than individual negotiating ability.

Basically, a meritocracy with ample opportunity to prove and utilize individual merit.

So how do we create more jobs, and ensure that compensation for those jobs is appropriate? The only way we can do this is to have more demand, which can only be accomplished by higher take home earnings (either from an increase in min wage or from cutting taxes on the worker/consumer class, or both).

Once we have ample jobs, I suspect that the compensation issue will resolve itself as employers will have to compete harder for workers, assumably with better compensation packages.

I think the word you're looking for is alleviated.

Gimmesometruth said:

So lets see, you want to create a correlation between "crime" and "jobs" (income), but I'm sorry to inform you that "crime" (violent crime) has DECLINED to levels not seen since 1978, after the bad old crack fueled 1990's....and yet household wages have not increase for lower quintiles.....ergo, your correlation phails....as per usual.

The point still is (and it applies very much to your "ideas"):

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.

Click to expand...

You can strain at gnats and be as personally insulting as you can find ways to be, and the fact remains that EVERY authority out there agrees that the single greatest reason a person will live in poverty is being a single parent or being a child with a single parent.

DISCLAIMER: No, this is not saying that all single parents are impoverished or that all children of single parents live in poverty. Let's focus on what is actually said.

But moving right along, it then logically follows that a neighborhood of traditional two parent homes will more likely be a neighborhood that is more prosperous and, by default, more aesthetically pleasing than a neighborhood of singles is likely to be. This in turn attracts business which will by default provide more jobs and any poverty cycle is more likely to be broken.

It doesn't matter what overall trends are in the crime rate. You will find less crime in traditional two parent neighborhoods than you will find in other social structures.

AlbqOwl said:

You can strain at gnats and be as personally insulting as you can find ways to be, and the fact remains that EVERY authority out there agrees that the single greatest reason a person will live in poverty is being a single parent or being a child with a single parent.

Click to expand...

That is clearly a reflection of the fact that we as a society have decided to not support single parents and that we do not have policy in place to cause the formation of stable long term employment. Marriage is sustained though long term employment, long term stable employment is not caused by marriage. You still have the cart in front of the horse.

DISCLAIMER: No, this is not saying that all single parents are impoverished or that all children of single parents live in poverty. Let's focus on what is actually said.

But moving right along, it then logically follows that a neighborhood of traditional two parent homes will more likely be a neighborhood that is more prosperous and, by default, more aesthetically pleasing than a neighborhood of singles is likely to be. This in turn attracts business which will by default provide more jobs and any poverty cycle is more likely to be broken.

Click to expand...

The cycle of poverty is broken by long term stable employment, the stability of marriage is based on economic stability....YOU STILL HAVE THE CART IN FRONT OF THE HORSE.

It doesn't matter what overall trends are in the crime rate.

Click to expand...

Of course it does not when when it crushes the premise of your argument. There is not a correlation between the declines in crime and wages, crime has declined, wages have been stagnate since 1977.

You will find less crime in traditional two parent neighborhoods than you will find in other social structures.

Click to expand...

Because you will see greater levels of economic stability in those households......you still have the cart before the horse.

imagep said:

If everyone got a doctorate degree today, in an employable field, we would still need burger flippers.

All that would happen is wages in higher paying fields would drop, and we still wouldn't have enough "good" jobs for everyone to have one.

Click to expand...

You're over thinking it. A "good education", despite what the people who profit from academia want us to believe, doesn't have to be a Ph D, or even a degree really. It can be an apprentice program that sets a person off a fine career as an electrician or a plumber. We need good people in those fields, too, and there is no shame whatsoever there.

And yes, we'd still need burger flippers, but I'd like to see people better educated in the basics of life in the sense that low-paid people would be able to balance their finances, understand and make intelligent financial decision even if they make low wages. Maybe eventually move up, and leave the lowest-paid jobs for entry level people, like it's supposed to be.

Gimmesometruth said:

That is clearly a reflection of the fact that we as a society have decided to not support single parents and that we do not have policy in place to cause the formation of stable long term employment. Marriage is sustained though long term employment, long term stable employment is not caused by marriage. You still have the cart in front of the horse.

The cycle of poverty is broken by long term stable employment, the stability of marriage is based on economic stability....YOU STILL HAVE THE CART IN FRONT OF THE HORSE.

Of course it does not when when it crushes the premise of your argument. There is not a correlation between the declines in crime and wages, crime has declined, wages have been stagnate since 1977.Because you will see greater levels of economic stability in those households......you still have the cart before the horse.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Our society supports single parents more now than we have ever done in the nation's history. Poor single parents are eligible for welfare, SNAP, child care credits, Medicaid, and any number of other social programs. The average family totally dependent on government receives direct payments and benefits exceeding the median income of the working family. And still the child in the single parent home is more likely to be living in poverty than is the child blessed with two parents in the home and, according to the latest statistic I read, is more likely to be poorer as an adult than his counterpart from the two-parent home.

This is not to say that there are not single parents who are wonderful parents, prosperous, and who inspire their kids to go on to do great things. Of course there are many such parents.

But the fact remains that the traditional two-parent familiy are more likely to produce stronger, more stable, more safe, and more prosperous communities than will communities made up of singles and single parent families. And the fact remains that the two-parent family is far less likely to need or utilize public assistance as well as most commonly being the best arangements for the kids, and this should be encouraged by everybody.

AlbqOwl said:

I don't think so. Our society supports single parents more now than we have ever done in the nation's history. Poor single parents are eligible for welfare, SNAP, child care credits, Medicaid, and any number of other social programs. The average family totally dependent on government receives direct payments and benefits exceeding the median income of the working family.

Click to expand...

Complete and utter bullchit, you are using the Jeff Sessions math that includes medicare payments to the elderly, including end of life care.

And still the child in the single parent home is more likely to be living in poverty than is the child blessed with two parents in the home and, according to the latest statistic I read, is more likely to be poorer as an adult than his counterpart from the two-parent home.

Click to expand...

Again, you cannot even begin to acknowledge that economic stability is the root to household stability.

This is not to say that there are not single parents who are wonderful parents, prosperous, and who inspire their kids to go on to do great things. Of course there are many such parents.

Click to expand...

Straw.

But the fact remains that the traditional two-parent familiy are more likely to produce stronger, more stable, more safe, and more prosperous communities than will communities made up of singles and single parent families. And the fact remains that the two-parent family is far less likely to need or utilize public assistance as well as most commonly being the best arangements for the kids, and this should be encouraged by everybody.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing otherwise, I am still pointing out that the household economics is the basis for ANY matrimonial stability. You cannot begin to acknowledge this basic fact.

They'll never be enough jobs for everyone to have one is simply a truth many can't stomach.

Ryan5 said:

They'll never be enough jobs for everyone to have one is simply a truth many can't stomach.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And this is one of the big lies perpetuated on us by academia that pisses me off. For example, stop selling MBAs like there's a never-ending need.

Josie said:

Work hard, be responsible and use your money wisely. No government is going to eliminate poverty by offering handouts. It's up to the individual.

Click to expand...

he didnt ask how you keep your Money ,josie