Oh, what an adorable little rant! Allow me to correct on a few of your factual points.
If you actually read what I wrote, you'd know that I didn't say this would END poverty, but it would reduce it, and if the correct #s were used, then it would STATISTICALLY end poverty. And, yes, you CAN change stastical results by appropriately redistributing numbers (I call it elementary math).
Giving money to the poor ABSOLUTELY WOULD REDUCE POVERTY. The assertion that giving enough money to the poor to raise them above the poverty line would still leave them stastically impoverished is absurdity (again, math). Socialistic policies have been implemented before in the U.S. to reduce poverty and they worked... ever heard of the New Deal or the Great Depression... Do you realize how many more people would have died during that time without government intervention?
It is true that some would try to suckle upon the welfare system and not improve their situation (as is done in the current system), but most people wouldn't be satisfied with the bare minimum offered by such a plan, most people, if given the chance to leave a state of poverty WOULD DO SO. Arguing otherwise is denying human nature: We are never satisfied with the bare minimum. This is the part where the left and right disagree; the right doesn't want to give any money to a system that people can abuse, and THE LEFT BELIEVES THE GREATER GOOD IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR INDIVIDUAL SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT.
The is a big difference between human NEED and WANT, though you don't seem to recognize it. Human NEED is based on the essential things we require to survive, and that IS a limited quantity. Human WANT, or GREED, does not have any bounds, which is why so many oppose giving money to those in NEED. Because they (you) WANT things.
My argument has nothing to do with equality and fairness, it is based upon HUMAN DECENCY, i.e. not wanting people to needlessly starve to death in one of the wealthiest nations in the world.
WOW! You better hurry up and get that memo to every major criminologist in the country because, ya know what.... CRIMINOLOGISTS HAVE CONSENSUS THAT POVERTY IS A MAJOR FACTOR IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY (read a book, instead of just telling me "what you think").
Most poor people don't commit crimes? No, no, sweetie, the answer is MOST PEOPLE WHO COMMIT CRIMES, DON'T GET CAUGHT, especially minor crimes like shop lifting. Also, some one who is impoverished has less to lose than someone who is not, and they ARE more likely to commit violent, drug related, and theft related crimes than other people because of this.
Let's apply your "logic" about crime elsewhere, shall we? Most rich people don't own jets, so being rich is not a factor in owning a jet...
Explaination: Just because "most people" of a group don't do something, doesn't mean that activity is not more characteristic of that group than of others.
It takes money to make money in this country. Not everyone who is rich worked to get there, and poor people inherit each other's debt with each generation. People don't have much of a choice, if they can't afford college. The "American Dream" of going from rags to riches is little more than a fairytale. All hard work brings for someone in a bad situation is fatigue and a bad back.
Again, you're assuming that these people would not be working. That was a primary clause of the sort of plan that I am talking about. They could just work the minimum requirement and collect the rest from the government, but that sort of existence has got to get boring quick. See your own comments about human nature and people never being satisfied.
Yeah, I already covered that. You can refrain from repeating what I've already said... ya know, just to save time.
WOW!! Tens of millions of people escape poverty every day?! Well, screw redistributing the wealth. Ha, this thing is gonna clear itself up within a week!
You can if you satisfy that need (logic).
WRONG! My family is actually lower Upper Class. We have a great sense of "personal accountability", and worked to get/stay where we are... But, we also understand that we were born into a better situation than most to begin with, and that not everyone is so lucky. NO ONE IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT FAMILY OR IN WHAT SITUATION THEY WERE BORN IN.
It is a fact (a real one, not one of yours), that over 70% of people in the U.S. die in the same socio-economic status as they were born into. ECONOMIC MOBILITY IS LIMITED, ESPECIALLY FOR THE POOR because IT TAKES MONEY TO MAKE MONEY (if you don't have money to invest in college, stocks, a business, etc., then your fate is pretty much sealed).
Again, that's a want, not a need.... unless you took the car because you had just been shot and needed to get to the hospital.
Well, if he's robbing you, technically he wanted money, so offering it to him probably would help.
Riight... So, welfare is morally corrupt, but murder is okay?
Actually, I believe they are entitled to the fruits of MY LABOR, as well as any other household making beyond a certain income. I believe that it is our responsibility as human beings to take care of those less fortunate than ourselves. Our life here on this earth is made up of a delicate balance, and we may actually live in harmony when everyone realizes ONE SIMPLE THING.......
that YOUR WELL BEING IS INTRINSICALLY TIED TO THE WELL BEING OF EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH. Neglecting one suffering person won't change your situation much, but neglecting an entire group that is suffering most definately will.
Anyway, let's just agree to disagree and say that I have a bleeding heart and you have a black one.
You've stated that you believe that [Obama] wants the same thing that you want; to end poverty and to do so with JUuuust enough socialism to get the job done; you've said that you and [Obama] aren't trying to stifle competition and nationalize the means of production where all citizens are converted to 'workers' paid scale salaries...
But here's the problem with that: THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF SOCIALISM THAT WILL END POVERTY: THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF REDISTRIBUTIVE ECONOMICS THAT WILL REDUCE POVERTY... PERIOD. Left-think, which is what you're espousing here, seeks to eliminate NEED... AND THERE IS NO END TO HUMAN NEED! Left-think erroneously confused equality with FAIRNESS... Of course you can't define fairness synonymously with equality, but that doesn't seem to stop you people from chronic usage wherein 'FAIRNESS' is paramount OVER equality; which is to say that the left doesn't give a RIP about people having equal rights and equal opportunity to pursue the fulfillment of their lives; the left demands that it IS NOT FAIR that two people with equal rights and equal opportunities did not realize EQUAL OUTCOMES... and that is simply ABSURD.
If you actually read what I wrote, you'd know that I didn't say this would END poverty, but it would reduce it, and if the correct #s were used, then it would STATISTICALLY end poverty. And, yes, you CAN change stastical results by appropriately redistributing numbers (I call it elementary math).
Giving money to the poor ABSOLUTELY WOULD REDUCE POVERTY. The assertion that giving enough money to the poor to raise them above the poverty line would still leave them stastically impoverished is absurdity (again, math). Socialistic policies have been implemented before in the U.S. to reduce poverty and they worked... ever heard of the New Deal or the Great Depression... Do you realize how many more people would have died during that time without government intervention?
It is true that some would try to suckle upon the welfare system and not improve their situation (as is done in the current system), but most people wouldn't be satisfied with the bare minimum offered by such a plan, most people, if given the chance to leave a state of poverty WOULD DO SO. Arguing otherwise is denying human nature: We are never satisfied with the bare minimum. This is the part where the left and right disagree; the right doesn't want to give any money to a system that people can abuse, and THE LEFT BELIEVES THE GREATER GOOD IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR INDIVIDUAL SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT.
The is a big difference between human NEED and WANT, though you don't seem to recognize it. Human NEED is based on the essential things we require to survive, and that IS a limited quantity. Human WANT, or GREED, does not have any bounds, which is why so many oppose giving money to those in NEED. Because they (you) WANT things.
My argument has nothing to do with equality and fairness, it is based upon HUMAN DECENCY, i.e. not wanting people to needlessly starve to death in one of the wealthiest nations in the world.
The fact is that most people around the PLANET, let alone in the US, who live in poverty DO NOT ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. Thus poverty does not 'cause' crime... what causes crime is people deciding to commit crimes; which is to say that people reject the idea that they re not ENTITLED to the belongings of another; what causes crime is that SOME PEOPLE decide that THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER PERSON'S LABOR... THEY HAVE A NEED... THE OTHER PERSON HAS THE MEANS TO FILL THAT NEED... AND THEY HIJACK THAT MEANS... THE VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE PERSON OF MEANS. Now the distinction between the two individuals, the one with the need and the one with the means may and often is nearly indiscernible; the difference of one guy on the MLK has $5.00 and the other one NEEDS that $5.00; but they're both walking down the MLK and they both broke as HELL, living in the same damn HOUSE, so to speak.
Your rationalization that poverty causes crime is invalid logically, you're just assuming that because crime is higher in areas where poverty is highest, that poverty causes crime.
My thinking on this is that violent crime is caused by a failure to understand the responsibilities inherent in our God given human rights; the failure to vigilantly guard against the exercising of one's rights to the detriment of another... thus those people committing violent crime do not accept their responsibilities and look to others, on many levels, to service their needs.
WOW! You better hurry up and get that memo to every major criminologist in the country because, ya know what.... CRIMINOLOGISTS HAVE CONSENSUS THAT POVERTY IS A MAJOR FACTOR IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY (read a book, instead of just telling me "what you think").
Most poor people don't commit crimes? No, no, sweetie, the answer is MOST PEOPLE WHO COMMIT CRIMES, DON'T GET CAUGHT, especially minor crimes like shop lifting. Also, some one who is impoverished has less to lose than someone who is not, and they ARE more likely to commit violent, drug related, and theft related crimes than other people because of this.
Let's apply your "logic" about crime elsewhere, shall we? Most rich people don't own jets, so being rich is not a factor in owning a jet...
Explaination: Just because "most people" of a group don't do something, doesn't mean that activity is not more characteristic of that group than of others.
Now the left will claim that those people don't have the opportunities that other people do... the answer to that is a simple "BULLSHIT!" The opportunity is there, because it is everywhere in the US. People accept that which satisfies them... and they generally accept poverty because they don't BELIEVE THEY HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE! They're taught that they are in poverty because someone ELSE has taken their opportunity... That the ethereal "RICH" are rich because THEY STOLE THE OPPORTUNITY FROM THOSE IN POVERTY... And THAT is what the left teaches them... That is the message that YOU HAVE JUST BROUGHT... That what we need to do is to spread the wealth around, so other people can be happy.
It takes money to make money in this country. Not everyone who is rich worked to get there, and poor people inherit each other's debt with each generation. People don't have much of a choice, if they can't afford college. The "American Dream" of going from rags to riches is little more than a fairytale. All hard work brings for someone in a bad situation is fatigue and a bad back.
Again... I must call BULLSHIT! here... And I don't mean to say that you are not ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that you're attacking the root cause and not the effects; I mean that you're DEAD WRONG. In that redistributive economics does absolutely NOTHING BUT treat the effect and to EMPOWER THE CAUSE.
Again, you're assuming that these people would not be working. That was a primary clause of the sort of plan that I am talking about. They could just work the minimum requirement and collect the rest from the government, but that sort of existence has got to get boring quick. See your own comments about human nature and people never being satisfied.
First, Labor is not zero sum; meaning that all labor is NOT one value and is NOT static...
Yeah, I already covered that. You can refrain from repeating what I've already said... ya know, just to save time.
Which is precisely how millions upon tens of millions of people born into poverty move up and out of poverty every day, in every way.
WOW!! Tens of millions of people escape poverty every day?! Well, screw redistributing the wealth. Ha, this thing is gonna clear itself up within a week!
"Need-Motivated" You nor any other movement, ideology or popular whimsy is going to resolve anything which is need-motivated.
You can if you satisfy that need (logic).
The problem is that you people reject the idea of personal accountability.
WRONG! My family is actually lower Upper Class. We have a great sense of "personal accountability", and worked to get/stay where we are... But, we also understand that we were born into a better situation than most to begin with, and that not everyone is so lucky. NO ONE IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT FAMILY OR IN WHAT SITUATION THEY WERE BORN IN.
It is a fact (a real one, not one of yours), that over 70% of people in the U.S. die in the same socio-economic status as they were born into. ECONOMIC MOBILITY IS LIMITED, ESPECIALLY FOR THE POOR because IT TAKES MONEY TO MAKE MONEY (if you don't have money to invest in college, stocks, a business, etc., then your fate is pretty much sealed).
I can imagine coming home after taking my Father's car without permission and explaining to him that 'need-motivation' was the basis of my disrespecting him, his rules and his trust.
Again, that's a want, not a need.... unless you took the car because you had just been shot and needed to get to the hospital.
ROFL... Yeah, I can see that working. "Please don't rob me Mr. Punk, here's a free living and in the unlikely event that you find yourself in need while you're enjoying the product of other people's labor, feel free to express your need and we'll pour more cash on you... because your needs supersedes the rights of others."
Well, if he's robbing you, technically he wanted money, so offering it to him probably would help.
Now go find gainful employment, increase your skill set until it becomes of a sufficient value that you're able to live a life which you find fulfilling and stop being such a DICK! Or we'll kill your ass for your failure to respect the rights of others.
Riight... So, welfare is morally corrupt, but murder is okay?
Your problem is that YOU DON'T WANT THOSE PEOPLE TO HAVE TO ASK FOR HELP! YOU WANT THOSE PEOPLE TO BE ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCT OF OTHER PEOPLES LABOR WHICH IS PRECISELY THE SAME PERSONAL FAILURE AS THE NEED MOTIVATED PUNK...
Here's a CLUE: YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER PERSON'S LABOR. PERIOD!
Actually, I believe they are entitled to the fruits of MY LABOR, as well as any other household making beyond a certain income. I believe that it is our responsibility as human beings to take care of those less fortunate than ourselves. Our life here on this earth is made up of a delicate balance, and we may actually live in harmony when everyone realizes ONE SIMPLE THING.......
that YOUR WELL BEING IS INTRINSICALLY TIED TO THE WELL BEING OF EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH. Neglecting one suffering person won't change your situation much, but neglecting an entire group that is suffering most definately will.
Anyway, let's just agree to disagree and say that I have a bleeding heart and you have a black one.