Eliminate Poverty: Possible or Pipe Dream?

[manifold]

Do you think it's possible to eliminate all poverty?

Is it something that may be accomplished naturally?

Is it something that can only be accomplished via government intervention?

Do you think it's an "ain't never gonna happen" pipe dream?

If it's a pipe dream, how much is too much to be spending toward an unattainable goal?

Please Discuss.

 

[High_Gravity]

I don't think its possible to completely eliminate poverty, I mean the whole point of welfare and cash aid is to try and stop people from being completely poor but so many people abuse it, even if you personally gave every homeless person $10,000 each, most of them would end back on the streets in less than 2 weeks because thats all they know.

 

[manifold]

I don't think its possible to completely eliminate poverty, I mean the whole point of welfare and cash aid is to try and stop people from being completely poor but so many people abuse it, even if you personally gave every homeless person $10,000 each, most of them would end back on the streets in less than 2 weeks because thats all they know.

I hear this accusation levied often. But I still have never seen any hard evidence to support it. Anecdotal stories abound, but that's not what I would consider hard evidence. Approximately what percentage of welfare aid spent by the government do you think ends up in the pockets of undeserving abusers of the system?

 

[Ravi]

Poverty cannot be eliminated. Without poor people, there would be no rich people.

Poverty can be managed though, and should be. The most successful countries have the least amount of poverty-stricken people and the bulk of their population in the middle class.

Kind of like the US used to be.

 

[daveman]

Pipe dream. Some people simply choose to be poor.

 

[Mr Natural]

Pipe dream. Some people simply choose to be poor.

Or they don't know how not to be poor.

Just like the vast majority of middle class don't know how to be rich.

 

[High_Gravity]

I don't think its possible to completely eliminate poverty, I mean the whole point of welfare and cash aid is to try and stop people from being completely poor but so many people abuse it, even if you personally gave every homeless person $10,000 each, most of them would end back on the streets in less than 2 weeks because thats all they know.

I hear this accusation levied often. But I still have never seen any hard evidence to support it. Anecdotal stories abound, but that's not what I would consider hard evidence. Approximately what percentage of welfare aid spent by the government do you think ends up in the pockets of undeserving abusers of the system?

To be honest we can never get hard numbers because nobody who is abusing welfare is going to step forward and admit it, how many people on welfare can rise out of it and become successful though? I hear welfare is really easy to get on but hard to get out of.

 

[xsited1]

Eliminate Poverty: Possible or Pipe Dream?

It must be possible because Deanna Troi said, "Poverty was eliminated on Earth a long time ago and a lot of other things disappeared with it-- hopelessness, despair, cruelty..."

There 'ya go.

 

[daveman]

Pipe dream. Some people simply choose to be poor.

Or they don't know how not to be poor.

Just like the vast majority of middle class don't know how to be rich.

So eliminating poverty is indeed just a pipe dream.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Do you think it's possible to eliminate all poverty? Ever since we started civilization, there has been poor people. So the odds a vast that it can be eliminated.

Is it something that may be accomplished naturally? Anyone, in America, can pull themselves out of poverty by themselves. However the system is set up that it's better to be on the dole, than working your way off. Outside of America, the rules change, so I can't make an informed comment.

Is it something that can only be accomplished via government intervention? We've had welfare since the 30's, and we still have poor. So no.

Do you think it's an "ain't never gonna happen" pipe dream? Yes. But that's not an excuse not to try.

If it's a pipe dream, how much is too much to be spending toward an unattainable goal? When it's easier to stay on welfare, than it is being off of it. Like it is now. The working poor have a little to show for the effort, while people on welfare have homes with yards that are paid for by the working poors taxes. [not just, but it makes my point]

 

[manifold]

I don't think its possible to completely eliminate poverty, I mean the whole point of welfare and cash aid is to try and stop people from being completely poor but so many people abuse it, even if you personally gave every homeless person $10,000 each, most of them would end back on the streets in less than 2 weeks because thats all they know.

I hear this accusation levied often. But I still have never seen any hard evidence to support it. Anecdotal stories abound, but that's not what I would consider hard evidence. Approximately what percentage of welfare aid spent by the government do you think ends up in the pockets of undeserving abusers of the system?

To be honest we can never get hard numbers because nobody who is abusing welfare is going to step forward and admit it, how many people on welfare can rise out of it and become successful though? I hear welfare is really easy to get on but hard to get out of.

I think good enough numbers are probably available to ballpark it, if someone with access to the data cared enough do so. All you need is a large and random enough sample size to satisfy the assumption of statistical significance. Then just do the math.

But at least we both agree that neither of us is in the position to put a number on it, which is why I take this oft-repeated accusation with a grain of salt. For example, if it turned out that less than 10% of welfare money went to unworthy abusers, I could live with that, as a kind of douchewagon tax that must be paid to get help to the other 90%. Conversely, if it was more than 50%, then I'd lobby to eliminate the program and try something else. All-points in-between viewed on a sliding scale of acceptability.

PS: I've searched for studies on this but haven't found any. If you can find one, please link it.

 

[manifold]

the system is set up that it's better to be on the dole...

Agree to disagree on this point. IMO the exact opposite is true.

 

[High_Gravity]

I hear this accusation levied often. But I still have never seen any hard evidence to support it. Anecdotal stories abound, but that's not what I would consider hard evidence. Approximately what percentage of welfare aid spent by the government do you think ends up in the pockets of undeserving abusers of the system?

To be honest we can never get hard numbers because nobody who is abusing welfare is going to step forward and admit it, how many people on welfare can rise out of it and become successful though? I hear welfare is really easy to get on but hard to get out of.

I think good enough numbers are probably available to ballpark it, if someone with access to the data cared enough do so. All you need is a large and random enough sample size to satisfy the assumption of statistical significance. Then just do the math.

But at least we both agree that neither of us is in the position to put a number on it, which is why I take this oft-repeated accusation with a grain of salt. For example, if it turned out that less than 10% of welfare money went to unworthy abusers, I could live with that, as a kind of douchewagon tax that must be paid to get help to the other 90%. Conversely, if it was more than 50%, then I'd lobby to eliminate the program and try something else. All-points in-between viewed on a sliding scale of acceptability.

PS: I've searched for studies on this but haven't found any. If you can find one, please link it.

Well no system is perfect, there will be people who abuse whatever they can and it is hard to say "alot" of people abuse the welfare system when in reality we really don't know for sure, I think if we eliminated welfare and other assistance we would have people living in shanty towns and sleeping in cemeteries like in Brazil and Egypt, where those countries don't offer any assistance.

 

[manifold]

Well no system is perfect, there will be people who abuse whatever they can and it is hard to say "alot" of people abuse the welfare system when in reality we really don't know for sure, I think if we eliminated welfare and other assistance we would have people living in shanty towns and sleeping in cemeteries like in Brazil and Egypt, where those countries don't offer any assistance.

Agree on all points.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

What exactly are we calling "poverty" in this question? Does it apply only to those who can't afford the basic necessities? Or does it also apply to those who have jobs where they make just enough to cover their bills and "get by?"

 

[Two Thumbs]

the system is set up that it's better to be on the dole...

Agree to disagree on this point. IMO the exact opposite is true.

Personal first hand knowledge says otherwise.

When people think of welfare, they think of people living in big cities in shitty parts of town.
In many cases that's true.

In most it is not.

My ex is on welfare. She has a newer car, 3 bed room home with a front and back yard. She pays about $300/month rent. If she left housing, her rent would jump to 700 - 1200/ month. Plus she would have to pay all the bills and mow any lawn she may have. That's at least an extra $1000 she would have to come up with.

When we split, I chose the hard way out. 7 years later she's living better than me and my new family are.

The up side? Every single last thing we have is OURS.

 

[manifold]

the system is set up that it's better to be on the dole...

Agree to disagree on this point. IMO the exact opposite is true.

Personal first hand knowledge says otherwise.

When people think of welfare, they think of people living in big cities in shitty parts of town.
In many cases that's true.

In most it is not.

My ex is on welfare. She has a newer car, 3 bed room home with a front and back yard. She pays about $300/month rent. If she left housing, her rent would jump to 700 - 1200/ month. Plus she would have to pay all the bills and mow any lawn she may have. That's at least an extra $1000 she would have to come up with.

When we split, I chose the hard way out. 7 years later she's living better than me and my new family are.

The up side? Every single last thing we have is OURS.

Like I said, anecdotes abound on the subject, but hard statistical evidence is in short supply. When you find some, I'd like to see it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Well no system is perfect, there will be people who abuse whatever they can and it is hard to say "alot" of people abuse the welfare system when in reality we really don't know for sure, I think if we eliminated welfare and other assistance we would have people living in shanty towns and sleeping in cemeteries like in Brazil and Egypt, where those countries don't offer any assistance.

Agree on all points.

"Alot" is a great term. It's as vague as you can get.

Alot = /= more than 1/2?
alot = /= more than you think should be?
alot = /= most?

When people work the system, and you see it, those people stick out in your mind. Not the 9 others that are couting pennies to make sure they have enough for the bus.

 

[High_Gravity]

the system is set up that it's better to be on the dole...

Agree to disagree on this point. IMO the exact opposite is true.

Personal first hand knowledge says otherwise.

When people think of welfare, they think of people living in big cities in shitty parts of town.
In many cases that's true.

In most it is not.

My ex is on welfare. She has a newer car, 3 bed room home with a front and back yard. She pays about $300/month rent. If she left housing, her rent would jump to 700 - 1200/ month. Plus she would have to pay all the bills and mow any lawn she may have. That's at least an extra $1000 she would have to come up with.

When we split, I chose the hard way out. 7 years later she's living better than me and my new family are.

The up side? Every single last thing we have is OURS.

Lets not even talk about Section 8 housing, the waiting list is very long but once you get on it you can get a new 4 bedroom house and only pay $25 in rent, yes, $25, not $250 or $2500. Now there are rules you can't have anyone over 18 stay with you and you have to be employed (I think), you don't pay any bills either in Section 8 housing.

 

[Ravi]

In fact, welfare fraud among Philadelphia's 95,456 recipients is "minute," according to Peter Berson, assistant chief of the government fraud unit in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office.

The 200 to 400 cases of welfare fraud in the city each year - down 50 percent since 2002 because of better enforcement and fewer recipients - are not nonworking women having babies to game the government, but working women receiving welfare and working at other jobs without reporting the income, Berson said.

 In Hard Times, Americans Blame The Poor   : Information Clearing House -  ICH