What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

after 50 years, the War on Poverty is over, and we lost (1 Viewer)

tommyboy said:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303345104579282760272285556

On Jan. 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson used his State of the Union address to announce an ambitious government undertaking. “This administration today, here and now,” he thundered, “declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”

Fifty years later, we’re losing that war. Fifteen percent of Americans still live in poverty, according to the official census poverty report for 2012, unchanged since the mid-1960s. Liberals argue that we aren’t spending enough money on poverty-fighting programs, but that’s not the problem. In reality, we’re losing the war on poverty because we have forgotten the original goal, as LBJ stated it half a century ago: “to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities.”

The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans. . . . If converted to cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all official poverty in the U.S.....
Click to expand...
Time to declare failure and move on.
Click to expand...
Before I weigh in, I need you to tell me how many iPhone5's these people "in poverty" own.

 
jonessed said:
TheIronSheik said:
bostonfred said:
Serious question for people who want to end the war on poverty. What would be the minimum level you'd allow people to go? Homeless but able to find occasional shelter, funded entirely by charity, and let the charities pass out any meals or clothes? what about areas with low charitable giving? Let those people die on the streets? Do you want poor children to be malnourished, not get their vaccinations, etc.? What about clothes? How do you get a job if you don't have clothes? Transportation? Can they get a bus pass? What about food? Do they eat gruel and stand in lines for gubmint cheese? Or do you just want to cut way back on foodstamps? What would you consider a reasonable line for the least we would provide for people, and how would you actually recommend making it happen (and no, saying that charities would handle it does not count as a plan unless you can explain where the money comes from, and how much the government ends up subsidizing through tax breaks instead of direct payment).
Click to expand...
Wait. Are people serious when they say they want to end the "war on poverty?" :confused: I seriously thought everyone was joking around.
Click to expand...
This thread is in it's end-of-life stage where it devolves into hyperbole, histrionics, and strawmen.
Click to expand...
No strawmen in my post at all. I'm asking a serious question. What would you consider a reasonable line for government assistance to the poor? Distefano posted that the current plan of lobster dinners was obviously a bit extravagant, and I have to agree. The poor have been getting rich for too long on the backs of our poor rich! (Ok, that's a strawman)Seriously, though, what is the line if we cut back government aid for poverty? How much different is it from the current line? Id like to hear some substance applied to these topics, instead of appeals to the mythical welfare queen getting decried by people saying that the poor will starve in the streets. There's obviously a level that each side is comfortable with... how far apart are they?

 
bostonfred said:
Seriously, though, what is the line if we cut back government aid for poverty? How much different is it from the current line? Id like to hear some substance applied to these topics, instead of appeals to the mythical welfare queen getting decried by people saying that the poor will starve in the streets. There's obviously a level that each side is comfortable with... how far apart are they?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure this is what you're looking for, but to me it all comes down to basic math. If we set "the bar" at a certain income level, the more people below that bar the higher % of people will will be on welfare of some sort. If 20% of the population is under that bar, then you have 4 people contributing (the other 80%) for every 1 person receiving. Maybe that sustainable, maybe it isn't - I don't know. If 33% of the population is under that bar, then you only have 2 people contributing for every one receiving. That can't be sustainable.

If on the other hand we don't set "the bar" at an income level, but rather as the "bottom x%", say the bottom 15% for instance. If you do that, then you'll always have 5.66 people contributing for every 1 person receiving. No matter what the income level is at that mark, at the least the program itself wouldn't cave in upon itself. Not sure that's what your after, though.

 
roadkill1292 said:
jonessed said:
TheIronSheik said:
bostonfred said:
Serious question for people who want to end the war on poverty. What would be the minimum level you'd allow people to go? Homeless but able to find occasional shelter, funded entirely by charity, and let the charities pass out any meals or clothes? what about areas with low charitable giving? Let those people die on the streets? Do you want poor children to be malnourished, not get their vaccinations, etc.? What about clothes? How do you get a job if you don't have clothes? Transportation? Can they get a bus pass? What about food? Do they eat gruel and stand in lines for gubmint cheese? Or do you just want to cut way back on foodstamps? What would you consider a reasonable line for the least we would provide for people, and how would you actually recommend making it happen (and no, saying that charities would handle it does not count as a plan unless you can explain where the money comes from, and how much the government ends up subsidizing through tax breaks instead of direct payment).
Click to expand...
Wait. Are people serious when they say they want to end the "war on poverty?" :confused: I seriously thought everyone was joking around.
Click to expand...
This thread is in it's end-of-life stage where it devolves into hyperbole, histrionics, and strawmen.
Click to expand...
Have I missed the part where we all make fun of conservatives or is that still to come?
Click to expand...
I believe it's still open season.

 
TPW said:
igbomb said:
The_Man said:
I really don't understand what vision people are putting forward when they talk about ending unemployment benefits and cutting off aid to the poor. Unemployment is stuck at something like 8% and there are three applicants for every single job opening. What are people supposed to do when they are trying to find a job that will support their family, but can't, because those jobs don't exist?

It feels like the vision is a Darwinian social dystopia. The strong and powerful will continue to thrive, and the poor will be left to their own devices, even if it means they don't survive.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. I know some folks truly have a fend for yourself attitude, regardless of outcome for some. But the conservative Christians, I've never been able to wrap my head around what they think would happen if we cut off assistance programs. Are they really ok with people dying in the streets or dying in their homes because they don't have heat or can't get a good meal? Do they think that charities will magically spring up and take care of all of these people? Or do they think that the entire poverty issue is one of motivation and that all of these people will rush out and find a job tomorrow if we just give them a push.

As a practicing Catholic, I run into other parishioners constantly that talk as if everyone on assistance is just lazy and that these programs should be ended. For the life of me, I can't see how they justify that with their faith.
Click to expand...
What I think also as a practicing Catholic is that if we continue along the path we're on the cut offs are going to happen regardless as our profligate federal spending burns off generations worth of collective wealth at a meteoric rate.

The wise aren't arguing whether or not to trim programs, they're preparing for that eventuality.
Click to expand...
I don't buy it. In this post you frame it purely as a rational fiscal discussion. But all you have to do is look through this thread to see the complaints of lobster dinners, or TV for the homeless. And I hear the term 'lazy' thrown out all of the time about the poor, or questions about why they have so many kids.

I think folks hide behind the fiscal concerns (though I don't see how cutting these programs will make our fiscal situation any better) but the tone and choice of words when talking about the poor suggests otherwise.

It's the thought of someone else getting something without working for it from our tax money. That is what sets people off, and from the Christian perspective I don't understand the anger.

 
We obviously have responsibility toward the poor and the helpless in our society. However, we have done an abominable job of fulfilling that responsibility. Ideally, the goal is to help those who are, and always will be unable to provide for themselves. The second goal is to help those who are temporarily unable to provide for themselves and guide them towards self sufficiency. Instead, we have created a system which encourages them to become permanent wards of the state, and what is even worse, encourages those who are perfectly able to take care of themselves to also become wards of the state.

Shoveling money at a problem may alleviate our conscience and win votes, but it is no way to develop a fully functioning society.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DiStefano said:
We obviously have responsibility toward the poor and the helpless in our society. However, we have done an abominable job of fulfilling that responsibility. Ideally, the goal is to help those who are, and always will be unable to provide for themselves. The second goal is to help those who are temporarily unable to provide for themselves and guide them towards self sufficiency. Instead, we have created a system which encourages them to become permanent wards of the state, and what is even worse, encourages those who are perfectly able to take care of themselves to also become wards of the state.

Shoveling money at a problem may alleviate our conscience and win votes, but it is no way to develop a fully functioning society.
Click to expand...
We've been over this before. We have far LESS in the way of safety nets and assistance programs than virtually any other developed nation. Yet we have far more poverty than those same nations. So tell me how we are allegedly creating this system that encourages inaction by the poor, yet other first-world countries offer far more?

 
Slapdash said:
humpback said:
Slapdash said:
Grahamburn said:
$500 cash to any male American citizen under the age of 35 for voluntarily undergoing a government funded vasectomy. The "war on poverty" would be over in 20 years.
Click to expand...
And our debt explodes as the population shrinks.
Click to expand...
So all we have to do is encourage people in poverty to have more children and our debt would vanish?
Click to expand...
Exactly what I said. Boy, nothing gets past you.
Click to expand...
Just extrapolating from your absurd post.

 
Grahamburn said:
Slapdash said:
Grahamburn said:
$500 cash to any male American citizen under the age of 35 for voluntarily undergoing a government funded vasectomy. The "war on poverty" would be over in 20 years.
Click to expand...
And our debt explodes as the population shrinks.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the average expenditure is to fund a child on Medicaid from birth to 18?
Click to expand...
Two new studies show, for the first time, that unintended pregnancy also imposes a high financial burden on the nation. The first study, by researchers from the Brookings Institution, used 2001 national estimates of the publicly funded outcomes of unintended pregnancies—births, abortions, miscarriages and infant medical care.8 It concluded that the estimated annual cost to taxpayers of providing medical services to women who experience unintended pregnancies—and to the infants who are born as a result—ranges from $9.6 billion to $12.6 billion, and averages $11.3 billion. Public savings from preventing these unintended pregnancies would range from $4.7 billion to $6.2 billion, and average $5.6 billion.

The second study, from researchers at the Guttmacher Institute, relied on first-ever calculations of unintended pregnancy at the state level.9 It estimated the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in publicly funded births in each state in 2006, as well as the resulting costs (see table, page 9).10 The study found that in 2006, 1.6 million births resulted from unintended pregnancy nationally. Of these, 64% were paid for by Medicaid—and, to a much smaller extent, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)—at an average cost of $11,700 per birth. As a result, the total public cost of unintended pregnancy in 2006 was $11.1 billion, representing half of the total amount spent by Medicaid and CHIP for births and infant care that year (see chart).
Click to expand...
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/3/gpr140306.html

 
TheIronSheik said:
bostonfred said:
Serious question for people who want to end the war on poverty. What would be the minimum level you'd allow people to go? Homeless but able to find occasional shelter, funded entirely by charity, and let the charities pass out any meals or clothes? what about areas with low charitable giving? Let those people die on the streets? Do you want poor children to be malnourished, not get their vaccinations, etc.? What about clothes? How do you get a job if you don't have clothes? Transportation? Can they get a bus pass? What about food? Do they eat gruel and stand in lines for gubmint cheese? Or do you just want to cut way back on foodstamps? What would you consider a reasonable line for the least we would provide for people, and how would you actually recommend making it happen (and no, saying that charities would handle it does not count as a plan unless you can explain where the money comes from, and how much the government ends up subsidizing through tax breaks instead of direct payment).
Click to expand...
Wait. Are people serious when they say they want to end the "war on poverty?" :confused: I seriously thought everyone was joking around.
Click to expand...
Yes, they're serious. Reminds me of when I kept hearing people joking about nuking Iraq, then I realized they weren't joking.

 
igbomb said:
TPW said:
igbomb said:
The_Man said:
I really don't understand what vision people are putting forward when they talk about ending unemployment benefits and cutting off aid to the poor. Unemployment is stuck at something like 8% and there are three applicants for every single job opening. What are people supposed to do when they are trying to find a job that will support their family, but can't, because those jobs don't exist?

It feels like the vision is a Darwinian social dystopia. The strong and powerful will continue to thrive, and the poor will be left to their own devices, even if it means they don't survive.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. I know some folks truly have a fend for yourself attitude, regardless of outcome for some. But the conservative Christians, I've never been able to wrap my head around what they think would happen if we cut off assistance programs. Are they really ok with people dying in the streets or dying in their homes because they don't have heat or can't get a good meal? Do they think that charities will magically spring up and take care of all of these people? Or do they think that the entire poverty issue is one of motivation and that all of these people will rush out and find a job tomorrow if we just give them a push.

As a practicing Catholic, I run into other parishioners constantly that talk as if everyone on assistance is just lazy and that these programs should be ended. For the life of me, I can't see how they justify that with their faith.
Click to expand...
What I think also as a practicing Catholic is that if we continue along the path we're on the cut offs are going to happen regardless as our profligate federal spending burns off generations worth of collective wealth at a meteoric rate.

The wise aren't arguing whether or not to trim programs, they're preparing for that eventuality.
Click to expand...
I don't buy it. In this post you frame it purely as a rational fiscal discussion. But all you have to do is look through this thread to see the complaints of lobster dinners, or TV for the homeless. And I hear the term 'lazy' thrown out all of the time about the poor, or questions about why they have so many kids.

I think folks hide behind the fiscal concerns (though I don't see how cutting these programs will make our fiscal situation any better) but the tone and choice of words when talking about the poor suggests otherwise.

It's the thought of someone else getting something without working for it from our tax money. That is what sets people off, and from the Christian perspective I don't understand the anger.
Click to expand...
If you don't understand how what some consider state-sanctioned theft upsets people, borrowing on the backs of the young and unborn to pay for present wants, then I can't help you.

We as Christians have an obligation to help our fellow man but we're also required not to steal, not to bear false witness, and not to dishonor our families. Large numbers of the recipients and enablers of the modern US welfare state regularly engage in such activities for nothing more than personal gain.

 
Slapdash said:
Grahamburn said:
$500 cash to any male American citizen under the age of 35 for voluntarily undergoing a government funded vasectomy. The "war on poverty" would be over in 20 years.
Click to expand...
And our debt explodes as the population shrinks.
Click to expand...
It would take 18 years and 9 months before the workforce would be affected at all, likely 25+ years before it's changed noticeably. In that time we'd have saved billions off welfare programs.

 
TPW said:
igbomb said:
TPW said:
igbomb said:
The_Man said:
I really don't understand what vision people are putting forward when they talk about ending unemployment benefits and cutting off aid to the poor. Unemployment is stuck at something like 8% and there are three applicants for every single job opening. What are people supposed to do when they are trying to find a job that will support their family, but can't, because those jobs don't exist?

It feels like the vision is a Darwinian social dystopia. The strong and powerful will continue to thrive, and the poor will be left to their own devices, even if it means they don't survive.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. I know some folks truly have a fend for yourself attitude, regardless of outcome for some. But the conservative Christians, I've never been able to wrap my head around what they think would happen if we cut off assistance programs. Are they really ok with people dying in the streets or dying in their homes because they don't have heat or can't get a good meal? Do they think that charities will magically spring up and take care of all of these people? Or do they think that the entire poverty issue is one of motivation and that all of these people will rush out and find a job tomorrow if we just give them a push.

As a practicing Catholic, I run into other parishioners constantly that talk as if everyone on assistance is just lazy and that these programs should be ended. For the life of me, I can't see how they justify that with their faith.
Click to expand...
What I think also as a practicing Catholic is that if we continue along the path we're on the cut offs are going to happen regardless as our profligate federal spending burns off generations worth of collective wealth at a meteoric rate.

The wise aren't arguing whether or not to trim programs, they're preparing for that eventuality.
Click to expand...
I don't buy it. In this post you frame it purely as a rational fiscal discussion. But all you have to do is look through this thread to see the complaints of lobster dinners, or TV for the homeless. And I hear the term 'lazy' thrown out all of the time about the poor, or questions about why they have so many kids.

I think folks hide behind the fiscal concerns (though I don't see how cutting these programs will make our fiscal situation any better) but the tone and choice of words when talking about the poor suggests otherwise.

It's the thought of someone else getting something without working for it from our tax money. That is what sets people off, and from the Christian perspective I don't understand the anger.
Click to expand...
If you don't understand how what some consider state-sanctioned theft upsets people, borrowing on the backs of the young and unborn to pay for present wants, then I can't help you.

We as Christians have an obligation to help our fellow man but we're also required not to steal, not to bear false witness, and not to dishonor our families. Large numbers of the recipients and enablers of the modern US welfare state regularly engage in such activities for nothing more than personal gain.
Click to expand...
1) First, I'm guessing you and I would disagree to the extent that abuse is going on.

2) Setting that aside, I'll concede that there absolutely is a level of abuse of social safety nets. But your allusion to the bible and the way we are obligated to live our life is NOT applicable to this discussion. You and I are required to live our life by certain standards. You and I are NOT required to attempt to force others to live their life by those same standards.

3) No matter how you cut it, a large number of people in this country rely on government assistance justifiably. And a large number of people will continue to do so. Our faith would never condone us unilaterally punishing these people in an attempt to ferret out those who may be abusing the system.

Again, many countries are far more respectful and supportive of their poor with far better results. I don't know why we can't see this in our country.

 
humpback said:
Slapdash said:
humpback said:
Slapdash said:
Grahamburn said:
$500 cash to any male American citizen under the age of 35 for voluntarily undergoing a government funded vasectomy. The "war on poverty" would be over in 20 years.
Click to expand...
And our debt explodes as the population shrinks.
Click to expand...
So all we have to do is encourage people in poverty to have more children and our debt would vanish?
Click to expand...
Exactly what I said. Boy, nothing gets past you.
Click to expand...
Just extrapolating from your absurd post.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

You are going to need to order a new one of these soon, it must be pretty worn by now.

 
TPW said:
If you don't understand how what some consider state-sanctioned theft upsets people, borrowing on the backs of the young and unborn to pay for present wants, then I can't help you.

We as Christians have an obligation to help our fellow man but we're also required not to steal, not to bear false witness, and not to dishonor our families. Large numbers of the recipients and enablers of the modern US welfare state regularly engage in such activities for nothing more than personal gain.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, who are you to judge the hearts of men? As Dorothy Day wrote, “The Gospel takes away our right forever, to discriminate between the deserving and the undeserving poor.”We as Christians better damn well help out any way we can. And if you can't figure that out politically, vote in the most unselfish way possible. That way you're covered.

 
igbomb said:
Again, many countries are far more respectful and supportive of their poor with far better results. I don't know why we can't see this in our country.
Click to expand...
The first bolded answers your second bolded. They are getting "far better results" elsewhere, so apparently our system isn't working as well.

 
Grahamburn said:
Grahamburn said:
Slapdash said:
Grahamburn said:
$500 cash to any male American citizen under the age of 35 for voluntarily undergoing a government funded vasectomy. The "war on poverty" would be over in 20 years.
Click to expand...
And our debt explodes as the population shrinks.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the average expenditure is to fund a child on Medicaid from birth to 18?
Click to expand...
Two new studies show, for the first time, that unintended pregnancy also imposes a high financial burden on the nation. The first study, by researchers from the Brookings Institution, used 2001 national estimates of the publicly funded outcomes of unintended pregnancies—births, abortions, miscarriages and infant medical care.8 It concluded that the estimated annual cost to taxpayers of providing medical services to women who experience unintended pregnancies—and to the infants who are born as a result—ranges from $9.6 billion to $12.6 billion, and averages $11.3 billion. Public savings from preventing these unintended pregnancies would range from $4.7 billion to $6.2 billion, and average $5.6 billion.

The second study, from researchers at the Guttmacher Institute, relied on first-ever calculations of unintended pregnancy at the state level.9 It estimated the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in publicly funded births in each state in 2006, as well as the resulting costs (see table, page 9).10 The study found that in 2006, 1.6 million births resulted from unintended pregnancy nationally. Of these, 64% were paid for by Medicaid—and, to a much smaller extent, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)—at an average cost of $11,700 per birth. As a result, the total public cost of unintended pregnancy in 2006 was $11.1 billion, representing half of the total amount spent by Medicaid and CHIP for births and infant care that year (see chart).
Click to expand...
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/3/gpr140306.html
Click to expand...
$11B seems like small dollars compared to the unfunded Medicare and SS obligations.

But, as another poster said, the answer could always be to import labor. There could be costs to that as well unless we are bringing over high-skilled labor.

 
jonessed said:
Grahamburn said:
Slapdash said:
Grahamburn said:
$500 cash to any male American citizen under the age of 35 for voluntarily undergoing a government funded vasectomy. The "war on poverty" would be over in 20 years.
Click to expand...
And our debt explodes as the population shrinks.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the average expenditure is to fund a child on Medicaid from birth to 18?
Click to expand...
At some point they would switch to Medicare.
Click to expand...
Unless they don't exist.

 
matttyl said:
igbomb said:
Again, many countries are far more respectful and supportive of their poor with far better results. I don't know why we can't see this in our country.
Click to expand...
The first bolded answers your second bolded. They are getting "far better results" elsewhere, so apparently our system isn't working as well.
Click to expand...
Your point? The contention by many conservatives is that by turning down (or off) the spigots of public assistance will fix the problem of our supposed 'welfare state'. Yet virtually every other developed nations has better results by providing more assistance.

So you're right, our system doesn't work well. But some simple benchmarking would suggest that more assistance is the prescription, not less.

 
Slapdash said:
Grahamburn said:
Grahamburn said:
Slapdash said:
Grahamburn said:
$500 cash to any male American citizen under the age of 35 for voluntarily undergoing a government funded vasectomy. The "war on poverty" would be over in 20 years.
Click to expand...
And our debt explodes as the population shrinks.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the average expenditure is to fund a child on Medicaid from birth to 18?
Click to expand...
Two new studies show, for the first time, that unintended pregnancy also imposes a high financial burden on the nation. The first study, by researchers from the Brookings Institution, used 2001 national estimates of the publicly funded outcomes of unintended pregnancies—births, abortions, miscarriages and infant medical care.8 It concluded that the estimated annual cost to taxpayers of providing medical services to women who experience unintended pregnancies—and to the infants who are born as a result—ranges from $9.6 billion to $12.6 billion, and averages $11.3 billion. Public savings from preventing these unintended pregnancies would range from $4.7 billion to $6.2 billion, and average $5.6 billion.

The second study, from researchers at the Guttmacher Institute, relied on first-ever calculations of unintended pregnancy at the state level.9 It estimated the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in publicly funded births in each state in 2006, as well as the resulting costs (see table, page 9).10 The study found that in 2006, 1.6 million births resulted from unintended pregnancy nationally. Of these, 64% were paid for by Medicaid—and, to a much smaller extent, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)—at an average cost of $11,700 per birth. As a result, the total public cost of unintended pregnancy in 2006 was $11.1 billion, representing half of the total amount spent by Medicaid and CHIP for births and infant care that year (see chart).
Click to expand...
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/3/gpr140306.html
Click to expand...
$11B seems like small dollars compared to the unfunded Medicare and SS obligations.

But, as another poster said, the answer could always be to import labor. There could be costs to that as well unless we are bringing over high-skilled labor.
Click to expand...
That's $11 Billion on just bringing unwanted children into the world. Taxpayers continue to foot the bill until they're 18. At which time they likely enter the workforce at or below the poverty line.

 
We seem to have filled our poverty quota. Perhaps we could stop importing it and fill that void with more skilled immigrants.

 
igbomb said:
TPW said:
igbomb said:
TPW said:
igbomb said:
The_Man said:
I really don't understand what vision people are putting forward when they talk about ending unemployment benefits and cutting off aid to the poor. Unemployment is stuck at something like 8% and there are three applicants for every single job opening. What are people supposed to do when they are trying to find a job that will support their family, but can't, because those jobs don't exist?

It feels like the vision is a Darwinian social dystopia. The strong and powerful will continue to thrive, and the poor will be left to their own devices, even if it means they don't survive.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. I know some folks truly have a fend for yourself attitude, regardless of outcome for some. But the conservative Christians, I've never been able to wrap my head around what they think would happen if we cut off assistance programs. Are they really ok with people dying in the streets or dying in their homes because they don't have heat or can't get a good meal? Do they think that charities will magically spring up and take care of all of these people? Or do they think that the entire poverty issue is one of motivation and that all of these people will rush out and find a job tomorrow if we just give them a push.

As a practicing Catholic, I run into other parishioners constantly that talk as if everyone on assistance is just lazy and that these programs should be ended. For the life of me, I can't see how they justify that with their faith.
Click to expand...
What I think also as a practicing Catholic is that if we continue along the path we're on the cut offs are going to happen regardless as our profligate federal spending burns off generations worth of collective wealth at a meteoric rate.

The wise aren't arguing whether or not to trim programs, they're preparing for that eventuality.
Click to expand...
I don't buy it. In this post you frame it purely as a rational fiscal discussion. But all you have to do is look through this thread to see the complaints of lobster dinners, or TV for the homeless. And I hear the term 'lazy' thrown out all of the time about the poor, or questions about why they have so many kids.

I think folks hide behind the fiscal concerns (though I don't see how cutting these programs will make our fiscal situation any better) but the tone and choice of words when talking about the poor suggests otherwise.

It's the thought of someone else getting something without working for it from our tax money. That is what sets people off, and from the Christian perspective I don't understand the anger.
Click to expand...
If you don't understand how what some consider state-sanctioned theft upsets people, borrowing on the backs of the young and unborn to pay for present wants, then I can't help you.

We as Christians have an obligation to help our fellow man but we're also required not to steal, not to bear false witness, and not to dishonor our families. Large numbers of the recipients and enablers of the modern US welfare state regularly engage in such activities for nothing more than personal gain.
Click to expand...
1) First, I'm guessing you and I would disagree to the extent that abuse is going on.

2) Setting that aside, I'll concede that there absolutely is a level of abuse of social safety nets. But your allusion to the bible and the way we are obligated to live our life is NOT applicable to this discussion. You and I are required to live our life by certain standards. You and I are NOT required to attempt to force others to live their life by those same standards.

3) No matter how you cut it, a large number of people in this country rely on government assistance justifiably. And a large number of people will continue to do so. Our faith would never condone us unilaterally punishing these people in an attempt to ferret out those who may be abusing the system.

Again, many countries are far more respectful and supportive of their poor with far better results. I don't know why we can't see this in our country.
Click to expand...
So we're supposed to stand idly by while abuses take place and the nation's coffers are pilfered because the country is now filled with a lot of amoral people who don't share our values? By all means, be my guest. Just don't be surprised on the day the proverbial rug gets pulled out from under you despite your best altruistic intentions.

As for your allusion to other countries, I would presume you refer primarily to the social services offered by various European nations. While they are generous I would challenge you to also examine their unemployment and growth rates as well as long term demographic trends. To describe them as being sclerotic is being generous. Unfortunately this nation is now headed down the same path toward the same ends.

 
Slapdash said:
humpback said:
Slapdash said:
humpback said:
Slapdash said:
Grahamburn said:
$500 cash to any male American citizen under the age of 35 for voluntarily undergoing a government funded vasectomy. The "war on poverty" would be over in 20 years.
Click to expand...
And our debt explodes as the population shrinks.
Click to expand...
So all we have to do is encourage people in poverty to have more children and our debt would vanish?
Click to expand...
Exactly what I said. Boy, nothing gets past you.
Click to expand...
Just extrapolating from your absurd post.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

You are going to need to order a new one of these soon, it must be pretty worn by now.
Click to expand...
No idea what you're talking about, but I'm still trying to figure out how having fewer poor people means exploding debt.

 
humpback said:
Slapdash said:
humpback said:
Slapdash said:
humpback said:
Slapdash said:
Grahamburn said:
$500 cash to any male American citizen under the age of 35 for voluntarily undergoing a government funded vasectomy. The "war on poverty" would be over in 20 years.
Click to expand...
And our debt explodes as the population shrinks.
Click to expand...
So all we have to do is encourage people in poverty to have more children and our debt would vanish?
Click to expand...
Exactly what I said. Boy, nothing gets past you.
Click to expand...
Just extrapolating from your absurd post.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

You are going to need to order a new one of these soon, it must be pretty worn by now.
Click to expand...
No idea what you're talking about, but I'm still trying to figure out how having fewer poor people means exploding debt.
Click to expand...
Our most expensive assistance programs resemble a ponzi scheme.

 
mon said:
TPW said:
If you don't understand how what some consider state-sanctioned theft upsets people, borrowing on the backs of the young and unborn to pay for present wants, then I can't help you.

We as Christians have an obligation to help our fellow man but we're also required not to steal, not to bear false witness, and not to dishonor our families. Large numbers of the recipients and enablers of the modern US welfare state regularly engage in such activities for nothing more than personal gain.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, who are you to judge the hearts of men? As Dorothy Day wrote, “The Gospel takes away our right forever, to discriminate between the deserving and the undeserving poor.”We as Christians better damn well help out any way we can. And if you can't figure that out politically, vote in the most unselfish way possible. That way you're covered.
Click to expand...
This guy gets it.

 
NCCommish said:
Some of you should try being poor in America for a while. It ain't no fun. And I don't care if there are poorer people elsewhere that isn't the ####### point. This is the richest country to ever exist. To not help the least of us is an indictment on our national character. By they way all you Jesus types need to re-read your Bible. This time try something other than a few sentences in Leviticus.
Click to expand...
i've been poor, it sucks.

but the point of this article, i think, isn't that we need to abandon the poor or the fight to help the poor, its simply the policies and choices we've made in order to do so, aren't working.

Maybe its time to try something different?

 
"The United States has both the highest overall poverty rate and the highest childhood poverty rate of any major industrialized country on earth, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. While 21.6 percent of American children live in poverty, the rate is 3.7 percent in Denmark, 5.3 percent in Finland, 6.7 percent in Iceland, 8.3 percent in Germany, 9.3 percent in France. "I suppose we can take some comfort in that our numbers are not quite as bad as Turkey (23.5 percent); Chile (24 percent); and Mexico (25.8 percent)."

~Bernie Sanders

MURICA!

 
tommyboy said:
NCCommish said:
Some of you should try being poor in America for a while. It ain't no fun. And I don't care if there are poorer people elsewhere that isn't the ####### point. This is the richest country to ever exist. To not help the least of us is an indictment on our national character. By they way all you Jesus types need to re-read your Bible. This time try something other than a few sentences in Leviticus.
Click to expand...
i've been poor, it sucks.

but the point of this article, i think, isn't that we need to abandon the poor or the fight to help the poor, its simply the policies and choices we've made in order to do so, aren't working.

Maybe its time to try something different?
Click to expand...
We absolutely should try something different. Something like fighting an actual War on Poverty like the European democracies who have done so successfully by offering a much larger social safety net than the United States does.

 
jonessed said:
We seem to have filled our poverty quota. Perhaps we could stop importing it and fill that void with more skilled immigrants.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Lock down the borders and make immigration a financial transaction for a generation or three. I'm tired of the poor huddled masses. Where's the Indian tech millionaire with a plan for 5000 jobs yearning to breathe air that doesn't stink of curry and starving cows?

 
igbomb said:
matttyl said:
igbomb said:
Again, many countries are far more respectful and supportive of their poor with far better results. I don't know why we can't see this in our country.
Click to expand...
The first bolded answers your second bolded. They are getting "far better results" elsewhere, so apparently our system isn't working as well.
Click to expand...
Your point? The contention by many conservatives is that by turning down (or off) the spigots of public assistance will fix the problem of our supposed 'welfare state'. Yet virtually every other developed nations has better results by providing more assistance.

So you're right, our system doesn't work well. But some simple benchmarking would suggest that more assistance is the prescription, not less.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know the answers, but what % of the US GPD goes to welfare programs, and what % of other industrial nations' GDP goes to their welfare programs?

 
igbomb said:
mon said:
TPW said:
If you don't understand how what some consider state-sanctioned theft upsets people, borrowing on the backs of the young and unborn to pay for present wants, then I can't help you.

We as Christians have an obligation to help our fellow man but we're also required not to steal, not to bear false witness, and not to dishonor our families. Large numbers of the recipients and enablers of the modern US welfare state regularly engage in such activities for nothing more than personal gain.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, who are you to judge the hearts of men? As Dorothy Day wrote, “The Gospel takes away our right forever, to discriminate between the deserving and the undeserving poor.”We as Christians better damn well help out any way we can. And if you can't figure that out politically, vote in the most unselfish way possible. That way you're covered.
Click to expand...
This guy gets it.
Click to expand...
Again, the wise aren't arguing for or against anything. Whether we steeply cut programs now or they collapse under their own weight as our fiscal situation continues to deteriorate over time, the net result is going to be the same.

If you feel obligated as a Christian to contribute handsomely to a fatally flawed system managed by the federal government which at present has a very dubious relationship with the church, go right ahead. I choose to spend most of my time and resources helping in a more hands-on fashion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed said:
humpback said:
Slapdash said:
humpback said:
Slapdash said:
humpback said:
Slapdash said:
Grahamburn said:
$500 cash to any male American citizen under the age of 35 for voluntarily undergoing a government funded vasectomy. The "war on poverty" would be over in 20 years.
Click to expand...
And our debt explodes as the population shrinks.
Click to expand...
So all we have to do is encourage people in poverty to have more children and our debt would vanish?
Click to expand...
Exactly what I said. Boy, nothing gets past you.
Click to expand...
Just extrapolating from your absurd post.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

You are going to need to order a new one of these soon, it must be pretty worn by now.
Click to expand...
No idea what you're talking about, but I'm still trying to figure out how having fewer poor people means exploding debt.
Click to expand...
Our most expensive assistance programs resemble a ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...
Seems more like a redistribution, and I still don't see how having fewer people who receive much more than they contribute would explode our debt.

 
matttyl said:
igbomb said:
matttyl said:
igbomb said:
Again, many countries are far more respectful and supportive of their poor with far better results. I don't know why we can't see this in our country.
Click to expand...
The first bolded answers your second bolded. They are getting "far better results" elsewhere, so apparently our system isn't working as well.
Click to expand...
Your point? The contention by many conservatives is that by turning down (or off) the spigots of public assistance will fix the problem of our supposed 'welfare state'. Yet virtually every other developed nations has better results by providing more assistance.

So you're right, our system doesn't work well. But some simple benchmarking would suggest that more assistance is the prescription, not less.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know the answers, but what % of the US GPD goes to welfare programs, and what % of other industrial nations' GDP goes to their welfare programs?
Click to expand...
Here's a white paper about it. http://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us-poverty-higher-safety-net-weaker/ You have to accept some of their definitions (relative poverty rate is households below 50% of the median adjusted household income per family size). They define Social Expenditure compared to GDP in their own way. But it generally shows the the US devoting roughly 16% of GDP to "social expenditure" compared to an average of 21% and change for "peer" (developed) nations. The high end of the scale, like France, spend nearly 30% of GDP on social expenditure.

 
Rush Limbaugh said:
"The United States has both the highest overall poverty rate and the highest childhood poverty rate of any major industrialized country on earth, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. While 21.6 percent of American children live in poverty, the rate is 3.7 percent in Denmark, 5.3 percent in Finland, 6.7 percent in Iceland, 8.3 percent in Germany, 9.3 percent in France. "I suppose we can take some comfort in that our numbers are not quite as bad as Turkey (23.5 percent); Chile (24 percent); and Mexico (25.8 percent)."

~Bernie Sanders

MURICA!
Click to expand...
Looks like being less ethnically diverse helps. Maybe we should try that.

 
Captain Quinoa said:
Rush Limbaugh said:
"The United States has both the highest overall poverty rate and the highest childhood poverty rate of any major industrialized country on earth, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. While 21.6 percent of American children live in poverty, the rate is 3.7 percent in Denmark, 5.3 percent in Finland, 6.7 percent in Iceland, 8.3 percent in Germany, 9.3 percent in France. "I suppose we can take some comfort in that our numbers are not quite as bad as Turkey (23.5 percent); Chile (24 percent); and Mexico (25.8 percent)."

~Bernie Sanders

MURICA!
Click to expand...
Looks like being less ethnically diverse helps. Maybe we should try that.
Click to expand...
Would think Turkey, Chile and Mexico less ethnically diverse than America. Or did you mean more white?

 
msommer said:
Captain Quinoa said:
Rush Limbaugh said:
"The United States has both the highest overall poverty rate and the highest childhood poverty rate of any major industrialized country on earth, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. While 21.6 percent of American children live in poverty, the rate is 3.7 percent in Denmark, 5.3 percent in Finland, 6.7 percent in Iceland, 8.3 percent in Germany, 9.3 percent in France. "I suppose we can take some comfort in that our numbers are not quite as bad as Turkey (23.5 percent); Chile (24 percent); and Mexico (25.8 percent)."

~Bernie Sanders

MURICA!
Click to expand...
Looks like being less ethnically diverse helps. Maybe we should try that.
Click to expand...
Would think Turkey, Chile and Mexico less ethnically diverse than America.
Click to expand...
Fair point

 
In the US, culturally we believe more in the right to become rich than the right to not be poor. Western European countries are the opposite. Their tax and social policy is geared toward making sure everyone has a minimum amount of livability. We could theoretically shift that direction, tax more, develop free college, daycare, minimum income guarantee etc if we collectively wanted to.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Here's a white paper about it. http://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us-poverty-higher-safety-net-weaker/ You have to accept some of their definitions (relative poverty rate is households below 50% of the median adjusted household income per family size). They define Social Expenditure compared to GDP in their own way. But it generally shows the the US devoting roughly 16% of GDP to "social expenditure" compared to an average of 21% and change for "peer" (developed) nations. The high end of the scale, like France, spend nearly 30% of GDP on social expenditure.
Click to expand...
Given that our GDP is 12x that of Spain for instance, I would imagine that our % could and likely would be lower.

I mean, 16% of 16.2T is 2.6T. That's Roughly $8,257 per person in our country.

Spain's 21% of their 1.3T is 273B, or only $5,831 per person in their country.

So, am I right in saying that we're already paying 41% more per person than Spain (our "peer") is?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TPW said:
igbomb said:
mon said:
TPW said:
If you don't understand how what some consider state-sanctioned theft upsets people, borrowing on the backs of the young and unborn to pay for present wants, then I can't help you.

We as Christians have an obligation to help our fellow man but we're also required not to steal, not to bear false witness, and not to dishonor our families. Large numbers of the recipients and enablers of the modern US welfare state regularly engage in such activities for nothing more than personal gain.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, who are you to judge the hearts of men? As Dorothy Day wrote, “The Gospel takes away our right forever, to discriminate between the deserving and the undeserving poor.”We as Christians better damn well help out any way we can. And if you can't figure that out politically, vote in the most unselfish way possible. That way you're covered.
Click to expand...
This guy gets it.
Click to expand...
Again, the wise aren't arguing for or against anything. Whether we steeply cut programs now or they collapse under their own weight as our fiscal situation continues to deteriorate over time, the net result is going to be the same.

If you feel obligated as a Christian to contribute handsomely to a fatally flawed system managed by the federal government which at present has a very dubious relationship with the church, go right ahead. I choose to spend most of my time and resources helping in a more hands-on fashion.
Click to expand...
Programs will never "collapse under their own weight" -- they will only collapse if we choose to let them. Our military budget could and should be cut in half first.And the fed gov't should have NO relationship with the church. What do you want, brownie points for God? I believe God just wants us to have a strong desire and ability to help the poor, any way we're able to do it. And how ever flawed you think the gov't system is, it helps areas that the church can't or won't reach.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rojbk
The Case Against Immigration
Replies
5
Views
909
joffer
joffer
GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #50 - 100 questions (75 greatest hits, 25 new)
Replies
19
Views
3K
GregR
GregR
Fennis
158 families have funded ~50% of the 2016 Presidential election
Replies
36
Views
1K
dparker713
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top