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

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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.

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?

I don't think you can assume that. The authors actually don't explain the GDP figure very well, but I've seen similar studies stipulate that they are plotted against per capita GDP to remove these types of differences. I assume such is the case here. I think it's very, very unlikely that the US spends more per person on the social safety net than countries with universal healthcare and (in some cases) guaranteed college.

 

[matttyl]

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.

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?

I don't think you can assume that. The authors actually don't explain the GDP figure very well, but I've seen similar studies stipulate that they are plotted against per capita GDP to remove these types of differences. I assume such is the case here. I think it's very, very unlikely that the US spends more per person on the social safety net than countries with universal healthcare and (in some cases) guaranteed college.

I'm not saying my numbers are right, as they are based on your link. But if they aren't, I'd love to know why they aren't. I took the GDP numbers right from wiki, and the population numbers right from a quick google search. I'm just doing a x% of GDP from your link, times that country's GDP from wiki, divided by that country's population.

Doing the same for Greece for instance is ~21.5% of 250B, or 53B. That's $4736 per person - we're still higher even though they have 5.5% more of their GDP going to "social expenditure".

 

[fatkid]

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.

Unemployment benefits should transition to welfare after a period of time. There is no reason that you should continue to receive higher benefits forever just because you had a job. We have a program for the poor, its called welfare. We have a transitional program for people who lose there jobs. Its call unemployment benefits. The transitional program has lasted too long, and people on it need to be transitioned to the program for the poor.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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.

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?

I don't think you can assume that. The authors actually don't explain the GDP figure very well, but I've seen similar studies stipulate that they are plotted against per capita GDP to remove these types of differences. I assume such is the case here. I think it's very, very unlikely that the US spends more per person on the social safety net than countries with universal healthcare and (in some cases) guaranteed college.

I'm not saying my numbers are right, as they are based on your link. But if they aren't, I'd love to know why they aren't. I took the GDP numbers right from wiki, and the population numbers right from a quick google search. I'm just doing a x% of GDP from your link, times that country's GDP from wiki, divided by that country's population.

Doing the same for Greece for instance is ~21.5% of 250B, or 53B. That's $4736 per person - we're still higher even though they have 5.5% more of their GDP going to "social expenditure".

Yes I misunderstood. Your numbers are correct whether we use GDP or GDP (PPP). I still don't think it's very significant for any number of reasons. For one thing, our revenue distribution is likely more less progressive than Spain's, which means that more of that spending is being financed from the middle class and even the poor that are meant to be served.

Part of this is reflected in the chart immediately preceding the chart on social expenditure. It shows the reduction in the "poverty rate" (again the percentage of people making less than 50% of the median income per household size) between pre tax and transfer and post tax and transfer.

 

[DiStefano]

I think the important thing is to keep throwing more money at it. That way, we will eventually get to the point that we are spending more money per capita than all those European nations. At least we'll be #1 in expenditures, and we'll be able to say: Take that, Eurotrash!. Just like we have in education.

And it's easy to do, because there isn't a single federal program that doesn't need more money. Feed the beast.

 

[Ilov80s]

Why not just declare victory and move on? It worked in Iraq.

 

[TPW]

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.

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.

This guy gets it.

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.

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.

Our military will be cut in half and then some in due course and the welfare state will still collapse. Again, see the current austerity measures sweeping across Europe whose nations have already stripped their respective militaries to the bone.

By your definition of Christianity we should all support communism because it claims to help the poorest amongst us and wants to create an egalitarian society. Never mind the whole murdering of any opposition or state mandated atheism stuff. Contraception for everyone, whether you like it or not! I do believe you are what qualifies as a "Catholic in name only".

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I just wish all those poor people would move to Mexico or something, they get on my nerves.

 

[matttyl]

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.

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?

I don't think you can assume that. The authors actually don't explain the GDP figure very well, but I've seen similar studies stipulate that they are plotted against per capita GDP to remove these types of differences. I assume such is the case here. I think it's very, very unlikely that the US spends more per person on the social safety net than countries with universal healthcare and (in some cases) guaranteed college.

I'm not saying my numbers are right, as they are based on your link. But if they aren't, I'd love to know why they aren't. I took the GDP numbers right from wiki, and the population numbers right from a quick google search. I'm just doing a x% of GDP from your link, times that country's GDP from wiki, divided by that country's population.

Doing the same for Greece for instance is ~21.5% of 250B, or 53B. That's $4736 per person - we're still higher even though they have 5.5% more of their GDP going to "social expenditure".

Yes I misunderstood. Your numbers are correct whether we use GDP or GDP (PPP). I still don't think it's very significant for any number of reasons. For one thing, our revenue distribution is likely more less progressive than Spain's, which means that more of that spending is being financed from the middle class and even the poor that are meant to be served.

Part of this is reflected in the chart immediately preceding the chart on social expenditure. It shows the reduction in the "poverty rate" (again the percentage of people making less than 50% of the median income per household size) between pre tax and transfer and post tax and transfer.

I'm just saying that when people claim that we have "far less in the way of safety nets" (igbomb, even you in post #87), when you work the numbers out on a per head basis, we already have far larger programs than many of those other countries that are considered our "peers".

 

[mr roboto]

I just wish all those poor people would move to Mexico or something, they get on my nerves.

"I'll have a coke then."

 

[Sarnoff]

I just wish all those poor people would move to Mexico or something, they get on my nerves.

Seriously. The poor are "American Poor". They should just move out. Become "Bolivian Rich" or "Argentinian Well-to-Do".

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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.

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?

I don't think you can assume that. The authors actually don't explain the GDP figure very well, but I've seen similar studies stipulate that they are plotted against per capita GDP to remove these types of differences. I assume such is the case here. I think it's very, very unlikely that the US spends more per person on the social safety net than countries with universal healthcare and (in some cases) guaranteed college.

I'm not saying my numbers are right, as they are based on your link. But if they aren't, I'd love to know why they aren't. I took the GDP numbers right from wiki, and the population numbers right from a quick google search. I'm just doing a x% of GDP from your link, times that country's GDP from wiki, divided by that country's population.

Doing the same for Greece for instance is ~21.5% of 250B, or 53B. That's $4736 per person - we're still higher even though they have 5.5% more of their GDP going to "social expenditure".

Yes I misunderstood. Your numbers are correct whether we use GDP or GDP (PPP). I still don't think it's very significant for any number of reasons. For one thing, our revenue distribution is likely more less progressive than Spain's, which means that more of that spending is being financed from the middle class and even the poor that are meant to be served.

Part of this is reflected in the chart immediately preceding the chart on social expenditure. It shows the reduction in the "poverty rate" (again the percentage of people making less than 50% of the median income per household size) between pre tax and transfer and post tax and transfer.

I'm just saying that when people claim that we have "far less in the way of safety nets" (igbomb, even you in post #87), when you work the numbers out on a per head basis, we already have far larger programs than many of those other countries that are considered our "peers".

I don't see how amount spent per capita is any better indication of the size of a safety net than percentage of GDP, particularly when you don't even factor in the effect of tax transfers. When we say that places in Europe have larger social safety nets, we're not talking about net spend (I'm not even sure what that would mean if you don't factor in COLA effects). You could just be saying that basic necessities cost more in the United States. We're talking about what their citizens get.

Spanish citizens don't have to pick between taking a job that puts them marginally over the poverty level and receiving health care. Americans on Medicaid do.

 

[modogg]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

i hate stumbling into these threads, but you honestly couldn't be more wrong. Just spend some actual time learning about the poor, who they are, and how they got there, instead of sitting in front of a computer recanting to everyone why there are poor in this country. i am much more familiar with poor in a large urban environment, but it is a lot more complicated than a bunch of people wanting to steal and dishonor their families. If you really care, just volunteer a day or 2 and you can learn.

 

[TPW]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

i hate stumbling into these threads, but you honestly couldn't be more wrong. Just spend some actual time learning about the poor, who they are, and how they got there, instead of sitting in front of a computer recanting to everyone why there are poor in this country. i am much more familiar with poor in a large urban environment, but it is a lot more complicated than a bunch of people wanting to steal and dishonor their families. If you really care, just volunteer a day or 2 and you can learn.

Evidently you didn't bother to read my subsequent posts. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=702767&p=16405868

I come from a family of first generation immigrants who were anything but wealthy and have spent countless hours volunteering my time. I dare to say at my advanced age I'm probably much more familiar with poverty and its myriad of sources than you.

 

[mon]

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.

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.

This guy gets it.

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.

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.

Our military will be cut in half and then some in due course and the welfare state will still collapse. Again, see the current austerity measures sweeping across Europe whose nations have already stripped their respective militaries to the bone.

By your definition of Christianity we should all support communism because it claims to help the poorest amongst us and wants to create an egalitarian society. Never mind the whole murdering of any opposition or state mandated atheism stuff. Contraception for everyone, whether you like it or not! I do believe you are what qualifies as a "Catholic in name only".

My definition of Christianity doesn't even come close to Communism and you're way out of line suggesting so, as we haven't discussed enough of my beliefs for you to assume that. Simply wanting to help the poor doesn't make you a communist, there are too many other variables.And I'm not a Catholic. Where the hell did you get that idea? You're insane. Seriously, you seem way out of touch with reality, with all of your assumptions.

 

[TPW]

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.

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.

This guy gets it.

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.

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.

Our military will be cut in half and then some in due course and the welfare state will still collapse. Again, see the current austerity measures sweeping across Europe whose nations have already stripped their respective militaries to the bone.

By your definition of Christianity we should all support communism because it claims to help the poorest amongst us and wants to create an egalitarian society. Never mind the whole murdering of any opposition or state mandated atheism stuff. Contraception for everyone, whether you like it or not! I do believe you are what qualifies as a "Catholic in name only".

My definition of Christianity doesn't even come close to Communism and you're way out of line suggesting so, as we haven't discussed enough of my beliefs for you to assume that. Simply wanting to help the poor doesn't make you a communist, there are too many other variables.And I'm not a Catholic. Where the hell did you get that idea? You're insane. Seriously, you seem way out of touch with reality, with all of your assumptions.

I got you and igbomb mixed up in the stream of quotes. You're not Catholic, just another secularist who believes that the best way to prosperity is through other people's pockets.

 

[modogg]

Evidently you didn't bother to read my subsequent posts. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=702767&p=16405868

I come from a family of first generation immigrants who were anything but wealthy and have spent countless hours volunteering my time. I dare to say at my advanced age I'm probably much more familiar with poverty and its myriad of sources than you.

i'm not trying for a pissing contest here. kudos to you and your volunteering, i'm merely suggesting your view on poor in the society is flawed. How many people change economic classes across generations. My experience has shown me that almost all poor individuals are born into the poor class, and the resources to work with youth to get them out of the vortex they were born into are under-funded, or worse, funded for 2-4 years, then not funded at all. the issues being discussed in this thread do not even cross the minds of the poor in our country. You do realize that the poor who are under the age of 18 barely eat, and yes their families may have a cell phone, etc., but these are the people, if they are not killed by their mid-20's, who will be continuing the trend of poverty and most likely growing it?

The challenge is no doubt complicated and has many factors, but to describe the poor as this entitled group who expects luxury items for free on a regular basis is not only extremely short-sighted, but it most likely makes any attempts to address the poverty issues worse, rather than being productive

 

[mon]

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.

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.

This guy gets it.

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.

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.

Our military will be cut in half and then some in due course and the welfare state will still collapse. Again, see the current austerity measures sweeping across Europe whose nations have already stripped their respective militaries to the bone.

By your definition of Christianity we should all support communism because it claims to help the poorest amongst us and wants to create an egalitarian society. Never mind the whole murdering of any opposition or state mandated atheism stuff. Contraception for everyone, whether you like it or not! I do believe you are what qualifies as a "Catholic in name only".

My definition of Christianity doesn't even come close to Communism and you're way out of line suggesting so, as we haven't discussed enough of my beliefs for you to assume that. Simply wanting to help the poor doesn't make you a communist, there are too many other variables.And I'm not a Catholic. Where the hell did you get that idea? You're insane. Seriously, you seem way out of touch with reality, with all of your assumptions.

I got you and igbomb mixed up in the stream of quotes. You're not Catholic, just another secularist who believes that the best way to prosperity is through other people's pockets.

You still got the wrong guy. Don't care at all about prosperity. Only care about people hurting. And I know enough about how the world works that many start out in life on an unfair playing field.

 

[TPW]

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.

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.

This guy gets it.

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.

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.

Our military will be cut in half and then some in due course and the welfare state will still collapse. Again, see the current austerity measures sweeping across Europe whose nations have already stripped their respective militaries to the bone.

By your definition of Christianity we should all support communism because it claims to help the poorest amongst us and wants to create an egalitarian society. Never mind the whole murdering of any opposition or state mandated atheism stuff. Contraception for everyone, whether you like it or not! I do believe you are what qualifies as a "Catholic in name only".

My definition of Christianity doesn't even come close to Communism and you're way out of line suggesting so, as we haven't discussed enough of my beliefs for you to assume that. Simply wanting to help the poor doesn't make you a communist, there are too many other variables.And I'm not a Catholic. Where the hell did you get that idea? You're insane. Seriously, you seem way out of touch with reality, with all of your assumptions.

I got you and igbomb mixed up in the stream of quotes. You're not Catholic, just another secularist who believes that the best way to prosperity is through other people's pockets.

You still got the wrong guy. Don't care at all about prosperity. Only care about people hurting. And I know enough about how the world works that many start out in life on an unfair playing field.

NEWSFLASH: Life is unfair. It always has been and always will be. There will always be suffering. It is the nature of the human condition.

The only way you completely "level the field" is by inflicting pain on others. That's not a path I care to follow.

 

[Joe T]

Good thread so far...

 

[mon]

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.

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.

This guy gets it.

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.

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.

Our military will be cut in half and then some in due course and the welfare state will still collapse. Again, see the current austerity measures sweeping across Europe whose nations have already stripped their respective militaries to the bone.

By your definition of Christianity we should all support communism because it claims to help the poorest amongst us and wants to create an egalitarian society. Never mind the whole murdering of any opposition or state mandated atheism stuff. Contraception for everyone, whether you like it or not! I do believe you are what qualifies as a "Catholic in name only".

My definition of Christianity doesn't even come close to Communism and you're way out of line suggesting so, as we haven't discussed enough of my beliefs for you to assume that. Simply wanting to help the poor doesn't make you a communist, there are too many other variables.And I'm not a Catholic. Where the hell did you get that idea? You're insane. Seriously, you seem way out of touch with reality, with all of your assumptions.

I got you and igbomb mixed up in the stream of quotes. You're not Catholic, just another secularist who believes that the best way to prosperity is through other people's pockets.

You still got the wrong guy. Don't care at all about prosperity. Only care about people hurting. And I know enough about how the world works that many start out in life on an unfair playing field.

NEWSFLASH: Life is unfair. It always has been and always will be. There will always be suffering. It is the nature of the human condition.

The only way you completely "level the field" is by inflicting pain on others. That's not a path I care to follow.

Nobody's talking about "leveling the field", just helping others when they're down. Do you have any idea how little welfare recipients get? Sorry, I believe we're all in this together. I know how lucky I was to be born white and come from a good, intact family. I know how it helped me get a good job. I believe we all have a responsibility to help the less fortunate.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Good thread so far...

Yep Roadkill made the important post on page one.

It is time to end welfare as we know it. It is time for a flat out handout rather than a hand up with all kinds of strings attached. Time to listen to the economists, time to simply end poverty in the US, time to unleash the untapped potential of tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans, time to go B.I.G.

 

[Riversco]

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).

Wait. Are people serious when they say they want to end the "war on poverty?" I seriously thought everyone was joking around.

This thread is in it's end-of-life stage where it devolves into hyperbole, histrionics, and strawmen.

And Jazzercize.

 

[igbomb]

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.

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.

This guy gets it.

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.

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.

Our military will be cut in half and then some in due course and the welfare state will still collapse. Again, see the current austerity measures sweeping across Europe whose nations have already stripped their respective militaries to the bone.

By your definition of Christianity we should all support communism because it claims to help the poorest amongst us and wants to create an egalitarian society. Never mind the whole murdering of any opposition or state mandated atheism stuff. Contraception for everyone, whether you like it or not! I do believe you are what qualifies as a "Catholic in name only".

My definition of Christianity doesn't even come close to Communism and you're way out of line suggesting so, as we haven't discussed enough of my beliefs for you to assume that. Simply wanting to help the poor doesn't make you a communist, there are too many other variables.And I'm not a Catholic. Where the hell did you get that idea? You're insane. Seriously, you seem way out of touch with reality, with all of your assumptions.

I got you and igbomb mixed up in the stream of quotes. You're not Catholic, just another secularist who believes that the best way to prosperity is through other people's pockets.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on Pope Francis and his philosophies. I daresay the leader of our church is far more aligned with my thoughts on the matter than yours. So about that Catholic in name only comment...

 

[igbomb]

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.

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.

This guy gets it.

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.

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.

Our military will be cut in half and then some in due course and the welfare state will still collapse. Again, see the current austerity measures sweeping across Europe whose nations have already stripped their respective militaries to the bone.

By your definition of Christianity we should all support communism because it claims to help the poorest amongst us and wants to create an egalitarian society. Never mind the whole murdering of any opposition or state mandated atheism stuff. Contraception for everyone, whether you like it or not! I do believe you are what qualifies as a "Catholic in name only".

What a giant leap. So because we support better treatment of the poor we are now Communists who like to murder opposition and mandate birth control? How very Glenn Beck-like of you.

 

[igbomb]

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.

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?

I don't think you can assume that. The authors actually don't explain the GDP figure very well, but I've seen similar studies stipulate that they are plotted against per capita GDP to remove these types of differences. I assume such is the case here. I think it's very, very unlikely that the US spends more per person on the social safety net than countries with universal healthcare and (in some cases) guaranteed college.

I'm not saying my numbers are right, as they are based on your link. But if they aren't, I'd love to know why they aren't. I took the GDP numbers right from wiki, and the population numbers right from a quick google search. I'm just doing a x% of GDP from your link, times that country's GDP from wiki, divided by that country's population.

Doing the same for Greece for instance is ~21.5% of 250B, or 53B. That's $4736 per person - we're still higher even though they have 5.5% more of their GDP going to "social expenditure".

Yes I misunderstood. Your numbers are correct whether we use GDP or GDP (PPP). I still don't think it's very significant for any number of reasons. For one thing, our revenue distribution is likely more less progressive than Spain's, which means that more of that spending is being financed from the middle class and even the poor that are meant to be served.

Part of this is reflected in the chart immediately preceding the chart on social expenditure. It shows the reduction in the "poverty rate" (again the percentage of people making less than 50% of the median income per household size) between pre tax and transfer and post tax and transfer.

I'm just saying that when people claim that we have "far less in the way of safety nets" (igbomb, even you in post #87), when you work the numbers out on a per head basis, we already have far larger programs than many of those other countries that are considered our "peers".

I just skimmed the paper so apologies if I mis-read. But I don't believe their numbers are taking into account things like universal health care, government funded secondary education, and a more robust pension system.

I agree that simply increasing the amount or length of time that someone can be on welfare isn't the long-term solution. Removing barriers to education and ensuring everyone has basic health services is what will enable the next generations to climb out of poverty and all of the bad decisions that come with it,

 

[matttyl]

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.

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?

I don't think you can assume that. The authors actually don't explain the GDP figure very well, but I've seen similar studies stipulate that they are plotted against per capita GDP to remove these types of differences. I assume such is the case here. I think it's very, very unlikely that the US spends more per person on the social safety net than countries with universal healthcare and (in some cases) guaranteed college.

I'm not saying my numbers are right, as they are based on your link. But if they aren't, I'd love to know why they aren't. I took the GDP numbers right from wiki, and the population numbers right from a quick google search. I'm just doing a x% of GDP from your link, times that country's GDP from wiki, divided by that country's population.

Doing the same for Greece for instance is ~21.5% of 250B, or 53B. That's $4736 per person - we're still higher even though they have 5.5% more of their GDP going to "social expenditure".

Yes I misunderstood. Your numbers are correct whether we use GDP or GDP (PPP). I still don't think it's very significant for any number of reasons. For one thing, our revenue distribution is likely more less progressive than Spain's, which means that more of that spending is being financed from the middle class and even the poor that are meant to be served.

Part of this is reflected in the chart immediately preceding the chart on social expenditure. It shows the reduction in the "poverty rate" (again the percentage of people making less than 50% of the median income per household size) between pre tax and transfer and post tax and transfer.

I'm just saying that when people claim that we have "far less in the way of safety nets" (igbomb, even you in post #87), when you work the numbers out on a per head basis, we already have far larger programs than many of those other countries that are considered our "peers".

I just skimmed the paper so apologies if I mis-read. But I don't believe their numbers are taking into account things like universal health care, government funded secondary education, and a more robust pension system.

I agree that simply increasing the amount or length of time that someone can be on welfare isn't the long-term solution. Removing barriers to education and ensuring everyone has basic health services is what will enable the next generations to climb out of poverty and all of the bad decisions that come with it,

I'm not sure what is and what isn't included in those numbers (healthcare, education) - but there may be things that aren't included in the US' number also. I would really like to know, though. I'm just saying that they gave a %, and I multiplied that by that country's GDP, and then divided that by the county's population. The end result is a pretty big number, and larger than many (most? I'm not sure), of those other countries that are considered our "peers".

I did the above math not to show what each person would "get" if the money to these programs were divided out evenly, I did it to show on average what every person is paying into them. After all, the money has to come from somewhere. $8,257 per person per year means that a family of 4, on average, is putting over $33k a year into these programs. I have no kids, but on average my wife and I are putting $16,500 a year into these programs. I think we can all agree that the results aren't what we want, and aren't on par with other countries. I don't think the answer to fixing that is to add more money to the pot.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Bill Gates:

Should the state be playing a greater role in helping people at the lowest end of the income scale? Poverty today looks very different than poverty in the past. The real thing you want to look at is consumption and use that as a metric and say, “Have you been worried about having enough to eat? Do you have enough warmth, shelter? Do you think of yourself as having a place to go?” The poor are better off than they were before, even though they’re still in the bottom group in terms of income.

The way we help the poor out today [is also a problem]. You have Section 8 housing, food stamps, fuel programs, very complex medical programs. It’s all high-overhead, capricious, not well-designed. Its ability to distinguish between somebody who has family that could take care of them versus someone who’s really out on their own is not very good, either. It’s a totally gameable system – not everybody games it, but lots of people do. Why aren’t the technocrats taking the poverty programs, looking at them as a whole, and then redesigning them? Well, they are afraid that if they do, their funding is going to be cut back, so they defend the thing that is absolutely horrific. Just look at low-cost housing and the various forms, the wait lists, things like that.

 

[Christo]

 

[Koya]

Very much on point. And it's not limited to poverty, but that's perhaps the most screaming and damaging angle.

We need not to rework our laws as how they are implemented. We need to start over for many of these programs.

Was it Elon Musk maybe who said its often harder, more expensive and more time consuming to make a system work 10% better than jury to begin essentially from scratch and make it twice as good. That's where we stand now.

 

[msommer]

Very much on point. And it's not limited to poverty, but that's perhaps the most screaming and damaging angle.

We need not to rework our laws as how they are implemented. We need to start over for many of these programs.

Was it Elon Musk maybe who said its often harder, more expensive and more time consuming to make a system work 10% better than jury to begin essentially from scratch and make it twice as good. That's where we stand now.

Except there are strong vested interests in maintaining status quo

 

[timschochet]

Very much on point. And it's not limited to poverty, but that's perhaps the most screaming and damaging angle.

We need not to rework our laws as how they are implemented. We need to start over for many of these programs.

Was it Elon Musk maybe who said its often harder, more expensive and more time consuming to make a system work 10% better than jury to begin essentially from scratch and make it twice as good. That's where we stand now.

Except there are strong vested interests in maintaining status quo

And not just that. The status quo is so entrenched that any changes will involve a lot of people getting hurt. And I think that, unfortunately, Obamacare has taught a lot of politicians that there is a huge political risk to any significant change. We're paralyzed.

 

[Koya]

Very much on point. And it's not limited to poverty, but that's perhaps the most screaming and damaging angle.

We need not to rework our laws as how they are implemented. We need to start over for many of these programs.

Was it Elon Musk maybe who said its often harder, more expensive and more time consuming to make a system work 10% better than jury to begin essentially from scratch and make it twice as good. That's where we stand now.

Except there are strong vested interests in maintaining status quo

Indeed. Power begets the want to keep and expand, of course. Our system has failed to adequately address that weakness of humanity in that respect.

 

[Slapdash]

Bill Gates:

Should the state be playing a greater role in helping people at the lowest end of the income scale? Poverty today looks very different than poverty in the past. The real thing you want to look at is consumption and use that as a metric and say, “Have you been worried about having enough to eat? Do you have enough warmth, shelter? Do you think of yourself as having a place to go?” The poor are better off than they were before, even though they’re still in the bottom group in terms of income.

The way we help the poor out today [is also a problem]. You have Section 8 housing, food stamps, fuel programs, very complex medical programs. It’s all high-overhead, capricious, not well-designed. Its ability to distinguish between somebody who has family that could take care of them versus someone who’s really out on their own is not very good, either. It’s a totally gameable system – not everybody games it, but lots of people do. Why aren’t the technocrats taking the poverty programs, looking at them as a whole, and then redesigning them? Well, they are afraid that if they do, their funding is going to be cut back, so they defend the thing that is absolutely horrific. Just look at low-cost housing and the various forms, the wait lists, things like that.

There is plenty of study and arguments for doing just what he suggests. The better question is why the political establishment won't even consider it.

 

[Koya]

Bill Gates:

Should the state be playing a greater role in helping people at the lowest end of the income scale? Poverty today looks very different than poverty in the past. The real thing you want to look at is consumption and use that as a metric and say, Have you been worried about having enough to eat? Do you have enough warmth, shelter? Do you think of yourself as having a place to go? The poor are better off than they were before, even though theyre still in the bottom group in terms of income.

The way we help the poor out today [is also a problem]. You have Section 8 housing, food stamps, fuel programs, very complex medical programs. Its all high-overhead, capricious, not well-designed. Its ability to distinguish between somebody who has family that could take care of them versus someone whos really out on their own is not very good, either. Its a totally gameable system not everybody games it, but lots of people do. Why arent the technocrats taking the poverty programs, looking at them as a whole, and then redesigning them? Well, they are afraid that if they do, their funding is going to be cut back, so they defend the thing that is absolutely horrific. Just look at low-cost housing and the various forms, the wait lists, things like that.

There is plenty of study and arguments for doing just what he suggests. The better question is why the political establishment won't even consider it.

Because the establishment wants to remain the establishment.

 

[lod01]

Bill Gates:

Should the state be playing a greater role in helping people at the lowest end of the income scale? Poverty today looks very different than poverty in the past. The real thing you want to look at is consumption and use that as a metric and say, Have you been worried about having enough to eat? Do you have enough warmth, shelter? Do you think of yourself as having a place to go? The poor are better off than they were before, even though theyre still in the bottom group in terms of income.

The way we help the poor out today [is also a problem]. You have Section 8 housing, food stamps, fuel programs, very complex medical programs. Its all high-overhead, capricious, not well-designed. Its ability to distinguish between somebody who has family that could take care of them versus someone whos really out on their own is not very good, either. Its a totally gameable system not everybody games it, but lots of people do. Why arent the technocrats taking the poverty programs, looking at them as a whole, and then redesigning them? Well, they are afraid that if they do, their funding is going to be cut back, so they defend the thing that is absolutely horrific. Just look at low-cost housing and the various forms, the wait lists, things like that.

There is plenty of study and arguments for doing just what he suggests. The better question is why the political establishment won't even consider it.

Because the establishment wants to remain the establishment.

 

[Hooper31]

Because the establishment wants to remain the establishment.

In the same interview Gates also says that the best time to live is now, and the best place to live is here. Not exactly in those words, but he ridicules anyone that would fondly remember a time past thinking things used to be better. Further, his criticism in the interview isn't directed at the establishment as much is it at political gridlock. Is that what you're referring to when you use the term "establishment"?

In that interview Gates says there are problems, and they have solutions. I thought it was a great read.

20 years ago I was a fan of Apple computer and saw Microsoft as the bad guy. Looking back I was can see now I had a narrow view. Maybe he was the bad guy then, but I'm very impressed with his world view now and the impact that he's having on molding the world of the future. If you haven't watched the Hans Rosling videos at TED I would highly recommend checking them out.

 

[Koya]

Because the establishment wants to remain the establishment.

In the same interview Gates also says that the best time to live is now, and the best place to live is here. Not exactly in those words, but he ridicules anyone that would fondly remember a time past thinking things used to be better. Further, his criticism in the interview isn't directed at the establishment as much is it at political gridlock. Is that what you're referring to when you use the term "establishment"?

In that interview Gates says there are problems, and they have solutions. I thought it was a great read.

20 years ago I was a fan of Apple computer and saw Microsoft as the bad guy. Looking back I was can see now I had a narrow view. Maybe he was the bad guy then, but I'm very impressed with his world view now and the impact that he's having on molding the world of the future. If you haven't watched the Hans Rosling videos at TED I would highly recommend checking them out.

At this very moment, indeed it's likely the best time to live. Longer, healthier lives. More people with access to an ok to great quality of life. Relative great freedom.

At the same time, freedom is always at risk. Freedom can win over control for a million days in a row, but every day it is still at risk. On the one day that control eliminates freedom, freedom is beaten quite possibly forever, and at the least for a long, long time.

Right now, we've done a great job as a nation preserving and even expanding freedom... however at the same time, the federal government has been ceded far more political and governmental control from states and individuals, the miltary has expanded exponentially, wealth is becoming more concentrated in the hands of fewer and technology has enabled all of the above to have far more control if/when they overstep and/or abuse their power... and you'd have to assume this threat will only become greater.

While right now we might be ok, the canaries of the NSA and our digital footsteps, the dollar influence of say the Koch Brothers and others of that power and position, the willingness and acceptance to use drones to potentially kill americans without certain due processes... I could go on ... these canaries portend a scary future when you recognize the if history has demonstrated us one thing, it is that the natural goal of anyone/thing that holds power is to retain, and usually if not almost always expand that power.

Back to where we started, with these influences all pointing toward at least the ability for momentum to continue until our freedoms are given away or taken (or both), we can succeed in retaining those freedoms every day only to have to continue that fight, the next. But on the one day we cede enough freedom to the established powers, we will not ever get it back (not in any reasonable time frame without eventual full out revolution).