He's Lowering The Child Poverty Rates.
Just as a point of discussion . . . We frequently hear phrases like; `he's lowering the child poverty rates. ' or "he's lifting children out of poverty," used as evidence of accomplishment, (I wanted to add real to that. but, no), by the "He." I don't think that is accurate. I think it is spin.
*(I lifted the first phrase from a Valeant comment. Not to pick on him but to pick on his, (and many others), use of this example. Also, in this case, the "he" is Biden, but my thought also applies to every "He" since Clinton)
I don't think any of those `he's' have done much more than give them, (the children's parents/guardians), more free money. What has been done to help those parents/guardians improve their life skills?
Maybe my perception is wrong, but I don't think just giving folks money for their needs accomplishes anything beyond the immediate financial relief. Where will those same folks be when the free money stops? I think the vast majority will be where they were before the financial aid.
Obviously, I don't think such statements are honest truths. They may be factually and statistically true, but when used as examples of accomplishment, I think the omission of any details or caveats about how it was done makes such statements ideological spin at best and, perhaps, purposeful deception at worst.
GAHey. GA. I like the topic. While I do agree that free money has its limits; kinda like taking help from a mother/or father-in-law. And, I understand your point about "he is raising children out of poverty." -- I think it is prudent to bring up that this money does not just go to those in poverty. The income limits for partial credit is $239,999 annually! https://bit.ly/3zgy8we
Second, considering the MANY obstacles that America's poor go through...the stacked deck civil and criminal court systems, the pay to play system for starting and running a small business, the prejudices they deal with on a daily basis that keeps them out of jobs that are open to others, etc.; I think throwing the poor several hundred dollars a month is a start to truly levelling the playing field. This money, going to middle and lower class families across the country, may just be the extra cash some of them need to start that business, send a gifted kid to summer camp, etc. The benefits could be more than some think.
Too often, the middle class and poor in America have things taken from us. Don't make much money? Pay a higher interest rate. Had car insurance lapse several years ago cause you were broke; pay more for insurance etc., etc. I don't think too many of us are going to feel bad about taking a handful of dollars. It will likely wind up in the hands of attorneys anyway. Gotta pay for freedom.Hey there bud. It looks like your forum participation has been almost as scarce as mine has been these last few weeks.
I can see the reality of most of the points you raise, but, I finished your comment feeling it was a rationalization for taking free money, and there are a couple of aspects I can't support. Plus, my point was about the giving of the money, not the acceptance.
For instance, when you talk about throwing money at the poor as justified by the life obstacles, (like higher interest and insurance rates), that they face and higher incomes don't, you are just rationalizing the giving.
And then you say most folks won't feel bad about taking a handful of money it gets even worse. Those folks aren't getting a handful of money from the government, they are getting it from the pockets of their fellow citizens. The government is just the purser, the middleman.
Money isn't going to level any playing field if it isn't used to "level" the players on the field.
GAIt's funny, a billionaire just paid 200 million for a joy ride into space.
A Bitcoin is worth around 50,000 dollars but it is not something you can drive, live in, eat, make into fuel, or melt into jewelry. Infact it's not material at all.
The richest person of the 18th century did not live as well as, nor had the riches and freedoms you do today.
Not only do few people in our country recognize the obscenity of our abundance, some who live in it's luxury are doing everything they can to destroy the system that created it.
It's the hyperbolic unprovable platitudes, combined with the condemning labeling and villianization, that are the weapons of those determined to destroy the bountiful and prolific opportunity this nation presents to all that have the willingness and determination to seek it out."And then you say most folks won't feel bad about taking a handful of money it gets even worse. Those folks aren't getting a handful of money from the government, they are getting it from the pockets of their fellow citizens. The government is just the purser, the middleman."
Take this and reverse it and maybe you will understand my point a little better. The government, and big business, take from the poor and the middle class as middle men for "fellow citizens" all the time. If you don't have the wealth to defend yourself, they will take every chance they get. I've lived it. They broke me once for no good reason other than they could. I discuss these things with others who have live it. So often, the ones that work the hardest. Yet, we are supposed to feel like we are somehow taking from our "fellow citizens" when we accept a bit in return? I've given till I could give no more. Many of us don't even have full rights of citizens. And, we will work our tails off for a pittance compared to so many of the more privileged. If they give it, I'll take it. If they don't I wont. But, the benefits are well studied as Valiant points out.
I think if you'd have lived my life, your view may be a bit different on this matter. Of course, I've not live yours either, so I cannot say you are "wrong" just maybe not like me on this front.It seems we are, mostly, talking about different things hard sun.
Firstly, I think you might be surprised by just how much I can empathize with the reality that you speak of. Our perspectives are not polar opposites. I do know where you are `coming from' with your views.
And secondly, my point was intended to be much more foundational than the discussions that would spring from statistical and Studies parameters. It is simply a question of whether turning on a tap should be presented as an accomplishment comparable to efforts to make that "turning on" not even necessary.
It seems so simple to me that I wonder if I have unrealistic expectations. What if a president simply lowered the child poverty threshold, is that the same braggable accomplishment as some new initiatives that helped folks get above that threshold on their own?
That view is why I referred back to Clinton as the last president to make real braggable anti-poverty accomplishments. His efforts didn't all work, but some did and they were a lot better than just giving away money to lift children out of poverty.
GAOkay. I see the discussion you were after I glossed over in my first reply: "I understand your point about "he is raising children out of poverty." -- I think it is prudent to bring up that this money does not just go to those in poverty. The income limits for partial credit is $239,999 annually!"
I did, and do, agree that we are giving one man way too much credit. It does seem a little akin to just moving the goal posts. And, if the tax credit were only about bringing people out of poverty, it would have been limited to people in poverty. It would seem all a bit too simple, to claim children are actually out of poverty when they are living on money that is in all likelihood not going to keep coming in. However, there is evidence that, if this money were to continue, that it would give a boost in moral that may find more people working.
In reality, I think Americans are starting to discover that we don't NEED two parents working full time. This is where the majority of the "worker shortage" comes in. COVID did this. Maybe this change, finding more parents at home, will help families in the long run,
I take every opportunity to get on a high horse about select things, lol.Thanks for the effort hard sun. Your "moving the goal posts" thought sums up my OP.
GA"I think Americans are starting to discover that we don't NEED two parents working full time."
Did some work looking into this years ago (even wrote a hub about it) and my conclusion was that few families actually need two earners, and that there were some definite disadvantages to it (bankruptcies, for example, happen much more frequently in two earner families). They do it for play money, for luxuries, for personal enrichment and other reasons - seldom because it is needed to survive.I would think this has a lot to do with lifestyle and cost of living in the area. When you can get a solid three bedroom house for less than $400 a month, and don't need all the latest toys, one income can be enough. I also know of a wealthier couple living near Seattle where one spouse dropped out of the workforce when COVID arose and is not going back. The other spouse just makes enough. They still have "play money." They just don't have to buy a brand new car every two or three years, etc. There are MANY things some Americans spend cash on that many of us don't find necessary. Some people just ooze money from their pores so they have to work more and more. Sitting in line in their SUV with the AC on for 40 mins to get their overpriced Starbucks coffee is just one example of this. Time is money and happiness.
Absolutely it has to do with lifestyle and where you live. Of course, wanting to live downtown San Francisco is a luxury in and of itself - make the choice to live in a cheaper area and you don't need that second income. Or even the large first income.
Yes, few people grasp just how much they are spending that is not necessary. I once saw a woman go ballistic because she couldn't get cable TV to her new house in a day or two - she had 4 children and it was necessary to have cable TV and what was she going to do without it!?!? The Starbucks is a good example, and so is the proliferation of storage facilities (why do Americans need so much room to store the junk they will never use?). The number of fast food and other restaurants is another - it seems there is one on every street corner today. The number of SUV's is an indication, and so is the lawn care industry.Yup. There are absolutely many people that make financial choices out to be necessities. That includes those with relatively little means, at least in the US. Our culture puts too little weight on moderation these days. This is not helpful in many different aspects. I'm Sounding a bit like an old man again damn it.
Damn, shots fired.
I guess all the academics who weighed in must also be being 'purposefully deceptive' as well.
When you help people remove debts, that allows them to use more of their money for needs. Getting a financial lift relieves stress. There are plenty of studies out there noting many other positive effects of giving the poorest money and how it then lifts them out of poverty. I know you to be well educated, so I'm sure you can craft a google search to investigate the research that exists on the topic.I think most folks can find academics and economists to support either side of this issue. The point wasn't whether they were deceitful about, or spinning their information, it is about whether simply giving money is the accomplishment it is being claimed to be.
I will leave the Google searches to other more educated folks, but if I were to craft a search I would start with our decades of War on Poverty efforts. I would look for instances where simply giving free money improved folks' life skills—not just relieved an issue of financial stress.
I know it is old, simplistic, and over-used, but this issue seems a perfect fit for that old `teach a man to fish vs. giving the man a fish' thought. Which is the real accomplishment for the intended purpose of helping a man feed himself?
I do not think the "accomplishment" of turning on the free money tap is the same as a real accomplishment of helping folks get that extra money themselves. Wait, hold on, that isn't a `bootstraps' statement. It is simply saying that just turning on that tap isn't really an accomplishment to be lauded as "lifting children out of poverty." If it is a true accomplishment why not give everybody whatever they need to avoid financial stress. That same effort could get rid of poverty for all if it was applied across the board—at least until the money source goes bankrupt.
GASeems that giving cash can sometimes help people be able to fish.
There is ample evidence that cash transfers have positive impacts on people living in poverty, at least on average. For example, a recent review of 165 studies found that cash assistance tends to increase spending on food and other goods, while also improving education and health outcomes. The authors further found little to no evidence of unintended consequences, such as people working less because they had higher nonlabor incomes.
Similarly, a recently released study of Stockton’s basic income experiment, which gave randomly selected residents $500 a month for two years, found that the cash payments stabilized recipient incomes, helped them get more full-time jobs and reduced depression and anxiety.
VShort term solution for a long term problem.
"The authors further found little to no evidence of unintended consequences, such as people working less because they had higher nonlabor incomes."
If those authors did not recognize and factor in that working more, while drawing welfare, only results in the total take home either falling or, at best, remaining static, they aren't worth reading.
Absolutely our welfare system is designed around encouraging people not to work and, unsurprisingly, it works. When household income falls when additional work is performed it's a pretty good incentive not to do more work. Or improve skills to earn more money, for the same thing happens with that increase as well."If those authors did not recognize and factor in that working more, while drawing welfare, only results in the total take home either falling or, at best, remaining static, they aren't worth reading."
Would this really work this way in most cases with the tax credit? It is being given to most everyone with children, and I don't think it counts as income at the end of the year when we file. I agree that much of the "welfare" system ends up discouraging work, but the way this is implemented is different? I could see losing some SNAP benefits, though most families on SNAP seem to suffer from an abundance of food and a lack of money.Not sure how the tax credit works; does it phase out with increased income? If so then yes, it could very well work to discourage efforts to increase income.
If SNAP recipients have an abundance of food then why in the world do we add in free school lunches and programs all over the country to hand out lunches (and more) during the summer? The answer, from personal observation, appears to be to give child care centers free food so they don't have to buy food for the kids in their care. At least that's what I watched in the park where the free summer lunches were made available; the only kids getting them were off loaded from vans with the names of local child care centers emblazoned on the sides.THE CTC does not start to phase out for single individuals until they reach $112, 500 annual. I don't think that is doing much to those who are getting other help. https://www.policygenius.com/taxes/the- … %20rows%20
I agree that the summer lunch programs seem wasteful. Maybe it is more to help kids of deadbeat parents that don't make lunches? IDK, I've always thought the same as you on this one. Maybe it is more for childcare centers.
My observation would be that if we "lift a child out of poverty" by opening the money tap, we are ensuring that the adult that child will become will be mired in poverty.
There are exceptions (aren't there always) but that is what I see most commonly. Add in that our system is designed, intentionally or otherwise, to keep people in poverty and the problem is exacerbated.GA, you can teach a man how to fish.
But - isn´t this discussion about children, who are not even able to hold a fishing rod?
Are the children responsable for their parents malfunction (of not holding a fishing rod)?I must be misunderstanding your point Chris57. The money at issue isn't going to the kids, it is not them that need help learning a life skill, (fishing), it is their parents/guardians, and they certainly can learn.
Also, my point is even more basic than that, It is an assertion that simply giving free money is not a braggable accomplishment. I do not agree that raising children out of poverty by giving them free money to breach that threshold should be viewed as an accomplishment.
Regarding your last question; are you proposing that the free money continue until the children are old enough to learn to "fish" and are no longer dependent on their malfunctioning parents/guardians?
GAGA, while we can argue about politicians talk on "raising out of poverty" i am not sure that this has to be related to moneyflow to the parents. That is what i learned in other countries with other social systems.
The issue with poverty is that poor children can not participate in social, cultural life because of lack of money. Literally poor children don´t even know that there is something like a fishing rod, because they never got to see one. And what good do uneducated but wealthy parents do to gifted children (Roald Dahl´s book and Danny deVito´s movie: Matilda)?
As we all live in "wealthy" countries, this is not about kids starving. It is about the need to educate all children equal in equally equipped and staffed schools. Have poor children participate in educational, cultural life and not be left to peer groups with questionable background.
My point: don´t just give the money to the parents. I would agree that in many cases this may be casting pearls before swine. Have more confidence in institutions, have institutions invest into making education real equal.
Modern farming waters the crop when and where necessary. The "crop" is not the children or parents. The "crop" is institutions, schools, colleges, universities.
In response to your last comment and question: I am proposing that money is given to schools to let the kids see the fishing rod. And i mean to schools in need and not those who had a fishing rod in the first place and would only buy a second one.Your comment sounds as if you don't think just giving free money to parents/guardians is a real accomplishment in the effort to lift children out of poverty. Is that right?
Regarding the points you mention, I think most would agree with you.
GA
"Are the children responsable for their parents malfunction (of not holding a fishing rod)?"
No. Will the parents' actions eventually transfer to the child as it enters adulthood and copies the actions of his parent? Probably.
The net result is by simply handing out money we are teaching children (through watching their parents) that the fishing rod and effort of using it is not necessary (or desirable, for that matter) in order to have a fish.Is poverty always the result of a "malfunction?" Don't some people just get a few more breaks than others? Aren't some people simply not too concerned about getting above an imaginary poverty line? I know a number of well educated children who come from "poor" families. Sometimes these kids end up doing very well financially, despite any supposed "malfunctions" their parents may have.
As always, on every forum, I see a lot of generalizations and assumptions made that are simply not true. I'm just picking this "malfunction" comment out as it is an easy target IMO.
The main issues that divide us are clearly more class based than race based, no matter what the powers that be want us to think. If I am well educated but still in "poverty" am I still a malfunction?hard sun, of course parents are not necessarily "malfunctioning" if poor. My point is that children should not be preloaded with the financial status of their parents. Equal opportunity is something else.
And that means indeed that money has to be spent, but not necessarily into the hands of the parents. See my comment above.For sure, children should not be preloaded with the financial status of their parents. It is already enough that some children are preloaded with the financial wealth of their parents. Good that you are not one of the individuals on this forum that thinks the poor are all malfunctioned in some way.
The fault doesn't lie in the stars but....IN OURSELVES.
Why give fish always to a hungry person? Why not teach or help them to fish? The former will remain unproductive, not willing to work. Those you teach can even go above and beyound you. You can be they beneficiary beyound your greatest expectation. I've seen it happen.
Your thought is held by most Conservatives. We are always willing to offer a helping hand*, (as most humans are, (even Liberals). But our helping hand asks for reciprocal effort. I don't see that as the perspective of most Liberals and Progressives—based on my exposure to their agendas and actions.
*yes, sometimes we do have to be prodded a bit.
GAWhat are the definitions these days?
I would say my beliefs fall within a mix of Environmentalist, Libertarian, Nationalist, Transhumanist, Satirical Realist.
Not sure Conservative quite covers it, and I am certainly not loyal to either or any party.Damn Ken, that's a lot of `ists'. Much too complicated for me. I'm simply a Purple.
GA
Gus, I vehemently assert that educating people to have relevant skill sets are keys to getting them out of poverty. In addition to that, they must be educated with an achievement mindset. Impoverished people have to be taught that there is a future, not just the present time.
Poor people only view things in the immediate present. If one studies the culture of poverty, there is a predominance of the immediate gratification mindset, philosophy, & purview. Poor people contend that they have no future so they act instinctively instead of planning long term. Poor people are analogous to children in their actions. They don't possess the self-control necessary to plan & strategize for their future. They act for the immediate goal.
Poor people are also passive. They believe that they have no control over their immediate environment. They furthermore contend that society is against them. They accept things. They believe that they are personae non gratae. To get out of poverty, one must adopt a pro-active attitude towards life. No one is going to do anything for you but you. The average poor person isn't cognizant of this.
They also look towards those more socioeconomically affluent, believe that the latter should carry them socioeconomically. Yes, poor people want a comfortable lifestyle but on SOMEONE'S DIME, not by their efforts. I concur w/Gus in that giving money & aid are THE WORST things to do regarding the poor. Giving money & other types of aid makes poor people entitled e.g. the current welfare system in which generational welfare is normative. Also there are poor family members who believe that their more affluent relatives should give them a comfortable lifestyle because they are too lazy to do for themselves. I believe that the poor need tough love- either they learn a skill or they STARVE.Some people achieve greatness or wealth not inspite of the trials and tribulations they have to face, but because they had to struggle to achieve.
What makes a good, productive, well-behaved citizen is education and example.
What makes a person truly successful is something from within, it is not taught, it is not given.
Tom Brady, Elon Musk, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, were Middle Class at best, they accomplished what they did because of what is inside them.
There will always be poor, there will always be people who were handed wealth and riches only to throw it all away... Just as there will be people that come from nothing and they change the world, like Nikolai Tesla.That is all well and good and I agree a lot with what was said. Yet, I think one factor that definitely needs to be considered is Opportunity while taking in one's circumstances. Even if you educate yourself and gain new work skills seeking to rise above one's status of being poor it means diddly squat if there is no opportunity. Or, things like the transportation for getting to the work miles away. Just a thought to consider.
For every "opportunity" that just happens to come by your door, there are 100 that are actively searched and worked towards.
Point being that if you sit back and wait for "opportunity" to come knocking it isn't likely to happen. If you get out and work your behind off making an "opportunity" you're a lot more likely to be able to find it.No doubt and well taken especially based on your life experience and mine too. I don't know about you, but, when I moved from one state to another and to a different city in CA I had a calculable amount of money in the bank before I pursued that opportunity and I had transportation. Do 'All those poor people' pursuing opportunity have that advantage?
Another anecdotal example is today, the young daughter of my neighbor is educated in biology with a degree. We live 30 miles from San Diego where those bio technician jobs are. The family is a one car family. So, she took a job part time as a waitress as they only hire people part time and walks to work. Fortunately we live in a mobile home park in town blocks away from the restaurant.
She worked hard with sacrifice to become educated. After achieving that she grabbed the bull by the horns pursued opportunity and then a lesser one not giving up. Yet, the crux of it is she is 'poor' and has to live with family still. Yes, the ideal is to save up and get a car then go after that ideal opportunity.
But, addressing GMWilliams of 'All poor people' with the generalizations I think opportunity and life circumstances should be considered.Yes, like you I had a calculable amount of money. Money that I spent over a decade saving in order to make that trip. Money that poor people can also save over time - can earn with small entrepreneur tasks for others, picking up odd part time work, etc. Enough to move to another location if not across the nation.
Sounds like it's time for your neighbor to move to where the jobs are. She can't find opportunity where she is; find another place to live. Or teach herself to fix cars and buy a junker then fix it up (I've done that, too). There are ways if one is willing to work at it and willing to sacrifice now for better in the future.It appears we both should pat ourselves on the back or thank the lucky stars or say kismet did its thing.
And, yes, life obstacles can be overcome with time and they are all the time including by those who are poor. No disagreement from me. Some may rise out of being poor, yet some may remain, while others roll in and out through a lifetime. Yet, even when people seek to pursue opportunity while bettering their life/work skills or educating themselves remain on the counted roles of the poor while doing so. They are poor.
Yet, my original reply was for GMWilliams to consider “Opportunity while taking in one's life circumstances” with making the sweeping condemnations regard ‘all poor people’. That being that 'all poor people' have a piss poor attitude on life and Won't change because they love wallowing in the mire of poverty. I can’t accept that, yet that is me. There is too much evidence to refute that that is both available through Google University with credible sources and anecdotal with my life experiences.Excusing the covid & other situations, many poor people in the United States made unintelligent choices which explains their dire socioeconomic conditions. They don't think but act instinctively, illiogically, & immaturely. Poor people have the immediate gratification mentality. They want what they want w/o considering the ramifications of their actions in the future. C'mon Tsmog, poor people in the United States act irrationally which is why they are poor.
Respectfully the difference between your view with mine in regard to who the poor is as far as I am concerned appears to be apples to oranges.
My view of the poor is there is scope to it and not all in one basket. To support that is information from a report by Brookings Institution where they used information from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
The report is titled Who was the poor in 2018. I will ask when you refer to the poor with their assigned attributions is it all of the categories below, some of them, or perhaps the Unclassified. I can’t accept all of those categories “act irrationally which is why they are poor”.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front … s-in-2018/
For 2018 the poor is:
*** Children are 31%
*** Seniors are 13%
*** Labor force (Working poor) is 23%
*** Disabled is 11%
*** Students is 7%
*** Caregivers are 8%
*** Early retirees are 4%
*** Unclassified are 2%Several of these are major problems, IMO. Children, seniors unable to work, the (truly) disabled top the list, and (again IMO) we can afford to give those a decent life...if we can. How we do it for children is a huge question mark.
But those who are poor from either bad decisions or by choice - I'm not much willing to help them long term. Early retirees and students are there by their own choice and I'm not interested in providing luxuries, or even most necessities for them. Of course Seniors, retires and early retirees are all mixed together and the fields overlap.First, I will clarify that I think there should be wise restrictions and strong policing with aid to the poor. The problem is policy tends to use the blanket method. I am sure we can agree there is fraud in the billions. I do know that some of the programs are administered by the states and they determine the restrictions and do the policing. Also, I am not a big proponent of tossing money out there as a problem solving strategy.
I agree with the first paragraph especially with ‘How’ with kids, which is what GA’s original post is on. I do know aid to them from a peek on the web is beneficial to the kids and to society at large. The old or new version of the Child Tax Credit and the other aid programs I have not delved deeply into to form a view on.
With the second paragraph I understand and accept your views, though I am infy on some of it. I would have to ponder those other programs after doing the research."I agree with the first paragraph especially with ‘How’ with kids, which is what GA’s original post is on. I do know aid to them from a peek on the web is beneficial to the kids and to society at large."
I actually question this. First we don't give aid, outside of school lunches, to children - we give it to the parent and hope it rolls downhill. Whether food stamps, free medical, housing allowance - whatever it is, we give it to the parents and they are the ones actually controlling it.
Secondly, when a child grows up watching mom or dad camping on the couch until the "free" money comes in, are we teaching the children that that's a great way to live? I fear that, for all too many kids, that's exactly what we are doing, perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
Not that I have a better answer - the children are probably the biggest problem we have and we haven't even begun to address it.
(Child Protective Services is such a fiasco, as is the foster care system, that I don't consider them even a beginning. A misbegotten effort with good intentions and an almost total failure result, IMO)I have the ‘sentiment’ that raising kids out of poverty as said earlier is beneficial to them and society at large. How realistic and practical that is I can only ponder and speculate. I like you I have no idea how to go about that.
Regarding the programs today I haven’t looked into them. I don’t know what they are or how they administered, so I am hesitant commenting on them. For me things like success to cost ratio is relevant. And, I care about my tax dollars while expecting they be responsibly administered.Nope, it isn't mine nor societal responsibility to raise a child out of poverty. That is the parents' responsibility. If one can't afford children, DON'T have them. Use some birth control or don't have sex. Stop being animalistic & primitive in one's instincts. Use restraint & logic. Sex isn't the most important thing you know. Poverty isn't mine nor society's problem- it is the parents' responsibility to act & reproduce responsibly. It is time to be adults- one is responsible for one's own fate, not others. Be accountable for oneself. Be a man, be a woman!!!!
"Poverty isn't mine nor society's problem-"
While many would like this to be true, and maybe think this is "right", the effects of poverty are absolutely felt throughout communities in many ways. People of all incomes have a vested interest in keeping things like crime, homelessness, poor health, etc., down. That seems undeniable.You are absolutely right - it is in societies interest keeping crime, homelessness and such to a minimum, and much of these problems come from poverty. But there is a flip side to this, with two major problems as I see it.
First, we are developing/have developed an entitled society through our efforts to "help" people in poverty. When over half of our nation is dependent on others to provide what is called "necessities" it is no longer a matter of combating poverty; it is a matter of socialism, or perhaps a better term is Marxism. "To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability", and that philosophy always has, and always will, result in a declining society when implemented.
The second problem is that the world, and a great many Americans, have decided that America is the dumping ground for the world's poor. That Americans are somehow "responsible" for providing for those that cannot, or will not, build the society necessary for themselves to survive in. That cost is never in mere money; it is in blood, sweat and tears and all too often in blood. We have paid our dues as a nation in all three, but are now expected to pay it again for those that don't like the bill, whether they are Americans or "refugees" from some third world country.That's terrific, and awful. Should America be doing Santa very often?
Yeah, Most anything can be taken too far, resulting in problems, including laisse faire capitalism.
The issue is still though, as you agree, there is absolutely an interest for all to keep poverty limited. How we do this, and to what degree, are two questions humans have been dealing with for centuries.
It seems some want to bury their heads in one direction, and pretend poverty does not bring problems to most everyone and others take the opposite extreme by going to far with their "solutions".I'll throw one more thing into the mix of problems as well; the desire of some to live outside the box, in poverty. Some people simply do not want the rat race of home ownership and living a regimented life that it requires. They don't want the day to day requirements of a job. Others put their priorities into other things, such as drug usage, that we do not approve of and will not finance.
Does that make the rest of us responsible to support those people? Personally I believe that, between the two, we see the majority of the poor - is it my responsibility to make them "rich" (relatively speaking) or is it my responsibility to simply ensure they do not interfere with what others want to see?Maybe. My son seems to think I can do anything, and I have a T shirt that says "If Grandpa can't fix it no one can".
Does that count?Nope. Actually, God could not fix those poor peoples jix if they had cultivated a poor mind set. Some he made that way, and we can help it. Though they would not worry others daily. Such poor has been known to help even the rich.
The whole point of the post was that a different mind set is not necessarily a poor one. People through history have made decisions that others disagree with, but that doesn't make them "bad" or "poor" ones. Only the individual in question can set their goals and desires.
But you're right - no god (whether God or god) can fix anything at all. It is a characteristic of imaginary beings.Better that we have variety among people than all the same, don't you think? Wouldn't it be sad if everyone had your own outlook, goals and philosophy?
"Does that make the rest of us responsible to support those people? "
No. That is, unless, as a society, we determine that the benefits outweigh the costs. We could, in fact, help families so that it is more likely that one parent can stay at home. We could help out drug users and such because we determine that it is worth it to bring crime rates down, labor rates up, and just help out so many who are friends and family of Americans, etc. It seems we are back to the same basic question as to how much help is "necessary" and who do we help to maximize societal benefit.
But, in terms of the ones who "choose" these paths, those that just have a different lifestyle will still choose to live that way of course, many don't get much benefits from what I see. Severe drug addicts often don't even get many food stamps. Until recently, in Indiana, no one in the home could get SNAP if a drug offender lived in the home. People who choose to get help and not do everything they can tend to get weeded out from benefit systems in this area, from what I've seen, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Also, I'm not entirely sure that we have the majority of the poor between these two. I think a great deal of those in "poverty" of working age, who are not on disability, in the US work 30 to 40 hours a week. (Of course, this comes back to what should truly be the "poverty" level) I'm sure we could find numbers. I also found owning a home was much more economical than paying rent around here.
A convoluted answer, for a convoluted issue. But, in the US, we cannot get past first base on any of the pressing issues. It is all about politics.
It is interesting to see numbers. My question is:
What is the 100%?
Who is poor?
What does poverty mean?
Are there thresholds of income per household, income per person?
The wikipedia article suggests that every country sets its own threshold for poverty. What is good for Bukina Faso is probably not so good for the USA. You can´t compare. Even developed countries are not really comparable due to different systems of money and service transfer.
But that was about money. What about cultural poverty? Example: A kid may never see the "fishing rod" in the shape of a symphonic orchestra in an opera house, either because the parents don´t take them there or because the family is not interested, or because there simply is no opera house. Not everything can be accomplished with a high school marching band.
What about social poverty? What about the ability or inability of children to interact and create networks? Recent pandemic doesn´t help in this aspect.
My point: Children must be given the chance to learn, to learn about their personal skills, talents and opportunities. Will take them out of poverty, be it financial, cultural or social poverty. I am afraid politics only refers to money, nothing else.
"It appears we both should pat ourselves on the back or thank the lucky stars or say kismet did its thing."
Yes, we could pat ourselves on the back. Or decide it was fate, or luck, that got us where we are. While others cry that they didn't get the same luck or that fate was against them; the "victim" mentality GM speaks of.
No two people will have the same opportunities in life, but both WILL have opportunity to change their life...if they work at both creating opportunity AND changing their life. It isn't so much a matter of luck as it is making good decisions and working to find, and utilize, what life can offer. IMO.Well said with a tip of the hat with the second paragraph.
As far as victim mentality goes the way I see it everyone has that, yet choose when to exercise. I had to laugh inside with the corporate management where I worked since they tossed it about so much, yet when I presented that their idea could not be supported by data and mathematics they exercised it. I do understand the jest of what you imply with a portion of the poor.
For more on the portion see the reply to GMWilliams reply to me above if using the chronological order for tracking.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. The problem w/many poor people in the United States is that they COMPLAIN & ENVY. They hate being po', they want a comfortable, easy lifestyle but .....OTHERS whether it is the gub'mint, more well off relatives, & charities to provide it, NEVER THEM, NEVER THEM. Reminds me of my detested, parasitic extended maternal relatives in the south who never amounted to anything significant, never contributed but instead want others to carry them financially. They have been carried by other relatives for MULTIPLE generations & they still expect others to FINANCIALLY support them. Mind you, they have a college education and Mensa level IQs.
My extended paternal relatives from the Caribbean had that spirit. They were poorer than my extended maternal relatives but within a generation 90% of them became middle class. They knew how to hu$tle, never depended upon other relatives to carry them as opposed to my extended maternal relatives from the south who expected, even demanded that others carry them. In my extended maternal family who live in the south, over 85% are poverty stricken by THEIR OWN choice or rather THEIR OWN stupidity & laziness. I have disowned the latter.
Covid has lowered the poverty line greatly and kids come with it.
Poverty kills more than anything.
When people fear their Government it's tyranny.
When Government fear it's people it's democracy.
I will add that I don't think it unreasonable to attach some sort of work requirements to the money. I saw Joe Manchin mentioned this.
It is true that many who win the lottery spend it all and end up just where they were in no time flat.
It is also true that if there were not so many government regulations, taxes and insurance requirements people could get their own businesses up and running. People however, can't. And it's not from a lack of effort, creativity or capital. The government seems to do all it can to prevent the wheels of success from turning and all it can do to stop any kind of momentum.
And then it says, "Here, we will take from those who are successful and do have momentum and give their money to you ... to waste. Because after all, you will become accustomed to not working toward your own goals and successes, one little step at a time. You will be enabled to take NO STEPS at all toward your own goals, hopes and dreams. You will spend the money in aimless pursuits, junk food and trinkets from the dollar stores. (I have seen it.)
Your lack of effort will, in essence, be encouraged.
So, that's all good ...
Right?What will lift children out of poverty?
... enabling their parents to work and make money.
However possible.
Whatever it takes.
work+money=survival.
Also kids need to be educated and encouraged to work toward careers.
And parents need to help their kids go for jobs that pay well.
And parents need to tell their kids not to have sex or get pregnant until they have a house, a washer and a dryer.I hope those "he's" will get some sort of momentum toward reality based logic/common sense. We all need to tend to reality and not pretend to illusion.
The illusion is that we can solve others people's dilemmas. We can't.
But, we can get out of their way.
And stop preventing them from marching forward with their own ideas, creativity, ambitions, hopes and dreams.
Their dreams !!! ... and not shut them down and PREVENT them from EVER manifesting!Well, it's nice for people to be so analytical on the subject.
Here's one thing you may not know, how the poor think.
I grew up in some areas that were quite poor. Due to hard work and perseverance, everyone in my family are all doing well now.
If you take care of the debts of the poor people I've known, they will run up more debts. Many are not forward thinking. Most have a victim mentality. No matter what they do, it's not their fault and it is the fault of society. I had a relative of a friend tell me she didn't like having children but she couldn't handle having a job. She had four children by four different men.
I've been told by some people how they don't like engaging in criminal behavior but they're never going to have a lot of money any other way.
This type of thinking has gone on for centuries.
I'm of the opinion every society since the beginning of societies has had a poor class. I think there is nothing that can be done to change this. Based on my experience, I believe certain people are just wired to be poor. They don't value money or success. If they have enough to eat and a place to sleep, they don't look beyond it. They are victims and are justified in gaming the system or engaging in criminal activity. They are happy to take hand-outs because they view it as a part of life.
I've had poor people tell me how they deserve welfare and shouldn't have to work because of this, that or the other thing.
I don't think giving them money will solve anything. It may make it worse.Readmikenow, I can reasonably understand you. And I've seen it happen. My Bible tells me that "the poor shall never cease out of the land." Whether these poor were so created by their creator and maker, or make themselves that poor, or were program by society, or unseen forces in such a way, no one do know. Critically, some are happy and some are not. Some want to move forward. I help such in the civil service before I retired, and he rose up to become an Executive Officer. Prior to that he was a messager. The others still remain messengers before retiring!
THANK YOU...My extended paternal family is like yours; however, in my extended maternal family, there are a bunch of entitled people who expect other people to pay their way.
That's the truth. It's what had to be done.
I've seen "poor" Americans way happier than any "rich" I've ever known, and vice versa. That is a reflection of how "poor" Americans don't have it as bad as the poor in some other nations and also a reflection of the fact that money truly cannot buy happiness beyond basic needs. I read a lot of statements in these forums that strongly imply otherwise.
Sometimes, people aren't thankful for the help they receive and only focus on how to take advantage of those helping them. Here is just such a story.
"Homeless individuals refuse to leave after taking over Tacoma man's property
"They take over slowly, it's kind of like an epidemic," the property owner said.
TACOMA, Wash. — A Tacoma man's property has been taken over by a group of homeless individuals that refuse to leave.
John, an 85-year-old military veteran, has owned his property in Tacoma for decades. He did not want to share his last name, but he did share a story that started three to four years ago.
John said one good deed turned into an out-of-control situation when he allowed two women with nowhere to go to stay on his property in an empty trailer he had.
Eventually, that one invite led to a revolving door of uninvited homeless visitors.
"They take over slowly," said John. "It's kind of like an epidemic."
Years later, now John is caught in a difficult situation. Tents, structures built by the homeless, trash, abandoned cars and other debris cover the property outside his home. Not to mention the homeless people living there that come and go as they please.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/home … syndicatedThe poor need TOUGH LOVE. Make poverty tough-no free money nor any other type of aid. When poor people had it tougher, they hated poverty-having the incentive to do better somehow. Social programs are making the poor more satisfied & entitled. If poor people are left on their own, they will either SWIM or SINK.
My extended maternal family in the south have been carried by relatives for MULTIPLE generations. With VERY FEW exceptions(my late mother, a middle uncle, & the youngest aunt & some industrious cousins), the family has LIVED OFF others in one way or another. The worst thing that was done to this "family" was to give them money & aid. As a result of these things, most of the family have become unambitious & entitled. When I told the younger malfunctioning, lazy generation of extended family this, they took umbrage at my remarks. They EXPECT other relatives to continuously support them which I REFUSE to. I believe in applying TOUGH love to poor people. If they refuse to help themselves, let them starve, do without, & be homeless.
One of my extended maternal cousins have the same principles as I do. Her sister is one of the entitled relatives who live off her mother although she is able-bodied & a college graduate with a 155 IQ. She refuses to work & expect others to take care of her. She has that family mentality that people are supposed to support her. My maternal cousin stated that the family involved need a swift kick in the ------. She told me if they become homeless, oh well. I agree.gmwilliams: What you describe in the example of your family is the result of primary socialization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_socialization
Children are formed by their families, parents, siblings in their early development. This does not turn out favourably always. But we should not use anecdotal evidence to resignate and let things happen (i think everybody has some black sheep in their family).
We have a saying: "Was Hänschen nicht lernt, lernt Hans nimmermehr" - "What little Jack didn´t learn, Jack will never learn".
To overcome the drawbacks of this critical primary socialization, kids should be engaged early in out of the family activities. In my country this starts at the age of 2 with day care, then kindergarten, then school, all for free. Does not solve the issue, but softens the outcome.
With regard to this discussion: Use money to intervene on a very early stage of child development, don´t leave it all to the parents (the money and the education).
Productive poor deserve way more respect than unproductive rich and we all may have varying answers as to what is productive. I'll take the "poor" guy that takes care of his elderly mom over the guy that climbed the corporate ladder so he could make up for his small anatomy or some such.
There are all sorts of types out there, and the size of the bank account is not much indication of what sort a person is, and too often, is absolutely not a reflection of one's intelligence, aptitude or work habit. It is pretty simple really. How we choose who to "help" will never be simple.While I agree 100% that choosing who to help is not simple (nor is the manner of help), the socialists of this country have decided that anyone without a pretty good lifestyle is eligible for money taken from those that have earned it. This is not, IMO, either ethical nor useful. It has been fascinating over the years to watch as the definition of poverty has steadily grown (beyond what inflation does) to include what used to be considered luxuries and beyond what I had as a child in a middle class household. Some of what is a "necessity" today was outright luxury in the not so distant past.
I agree that the definition of poverty is too high and your point about what us necessity. The advanced additional child tax credit is not linked to just poverty though. I read today about how it was facilitating a percentage of middle and upper middle class to have one parent stay home. Going back to one parent at home could be part of the solution to many of our problems. It seems things worked better when that was the norm.
I agree that when possible one parent should remain at home - children need a parent not a substitute.
But the credit allowing that? Hardly - what it does allow is to maintain a high standard of living (while others pay for it) as one parent stays home. There are relatively few two parent middle class households that actually require two incomes. So few I would have to say the biggest reason for them is unskilled labor, and there are certainly no upper class two parent homes that need that credit to raise their kids. Only to keep the toys in the driveway while one parent stays with the children they chose to raise.
Yes, there is little doubt that children did better when they had a parent at home. Or, more likely, no doubt.For many years the likelyhood of children being raised in poverty is highest for single parents and especially single women with children. With due respect: Isn´t the discussion of middle class households requiring one or two incomes a little academic? Just asking..
Yeah. I had a good idea what you may say after I re-read my response. I cannot really disagree with you. I think I already did agree with you that many people think they "need" way more than they have. I do also see how this should be left to academic study, but we would need academic honesty, which is rarer and rarer these days I think.
Is it "white trash" to be happy and broke?"..."say the word white and they act like their furious."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2K1xQOp4qo&t=2sWhat was that all about?
I am not sure of the point you intend with your video link, but I can say one thing I think about it.
Those guys are nuts. They chose to appear as the most extreme of the stereotypical "white trash" image. Their video producer missed an opportunity by not including a barefoot pregnant teenager.
A phrase in the video; "people are judging me for my exterior", sounds good and right, ie. judge people for who they are, not what they look like. But, when one has control of their "exterior" then their appearance does present a picture of "who they are." And is fair game for forming an opinion.
White trash and happy and broke aren't welded together.
GAHa..I was mainly just trying to be a bit funny and see what reactions I may get and you did not disappoint.
They do make a couple decent points, about race, and judgement, as another non-white youtuber pointed out, which is how I was directed to the video. I agree, it is very difficult not to make judgments based on how someone chooses to dress, and perhaps rightfully so. We all get judged.
But, taking them seriously is not easy. The Macdonald guy did make some serious money off a few videos.
White trash and happy and broke aren't welded together?That last question seems so obvious, (that they are not), that I must be misunderstanding you again. For instance; those video guys looked, (maybe purposely), like the image I get of white trash. They may also be happy. But I bet they ain't broke.
Another stereotypical example. Consider what you might think is the common image when West Virginia Hillbilly is mentioned. I bet most of them wouldn't fit the white trash description, (very few trailer parks), but frequently fit the happy-and-broke one.
GAI did not know if you were referring to the video or something in real life, so guess it just went over my head. But, yeah, they are definitely not broke. It's good that they are not singing, or rapping, about being happy billionaires though.
The serious point I think the song makes is that many poorer, and middle class American whites feel left out, left behind, and stereotyped. Meanwhile, there is no excuse for being what some say is "white trash" but there is every excuse for being what some consider to be "less than" if you are any other color. Bu, screw em, cause they are happy anyway.
Related Discussions
- 619
Is giving money the only way to help poor people?
by Goodpal 2 years ago
Is giving money the only way to help poor people?You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money. - P. J. O'Rourke. What do you think?
- 38
Is Poverty a Disease?
by Charles James 12 years ago
There are many millions of people who are born in poverty, live in poverty, die in poverty, and leave their children in poverty. Getting out of poverty by individual effort is theoretically possible, and there are people who have broken out of poverty.A bit of bad luck can derail anyone's plans....
- 19
Why are large families ALWAYS dependent upon outside assistance to keep them soc
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
Why are large families ALWAYS dependent upon outside assistance to keep them socioeconomicallyafloat as opposed to small families who are very socioeconomically self-sufficient? Typical large families are poor to impoverished socioeconomically. That means that in order to be...
- 73
The K.I.S.S. Factor-It is VERY SIMPLE Really! Yes, Really!!
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
How can we REDUCE, if not ELIMINATE poverty in America? Let's get TRUTHFUL, even RAW here, no SOFTSOAPING here! Let's TELL IT LIKE IT IS!
- 23
Do you believe that poorer and/or less educated people have more children whom t
by H C Palting 5 years ago
Do you believe that poorer and/or less educated people have more children whom they can't support?Do you know any ill effects to the child(ren) born to these families and society? If so, what are they?
- 11
Is it possible to help poor people and keep our liberty?
by Daniel J. Neumann 12 years ago
Is it possible to help poor people and keep our liberty?I'm sorry; I guess I'm confused again. I never thought these two things were mutually exclusive. Why aren't there more Marxist Libertarians or Conservative Liberals out there? I guess I want to eat my cake when I have it.