How to end poverty in America.

[GLASNOST]

I do that a lot. Maybe I'm trolling, but in a good way.

Maybe.

 

[GLASNOST]

The government puts more money into the economy than it takes in in revenues. This money either creates jobs, or inflation, our choice.

This, in the case of the US, has no bearing on poverty. The US cheats its own population. If a nation consists of only two citizens, one is a millionaire and the other is homeless & starving Americans will boast it's the only nation in the world where 50% of its population are millionaires.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The government puts more money into the economy than it takes in in revenues. This money either creates jobs, or inflation, our choice.

Not sure you understood what I said.

If you have four people. Two of them earn $60 billion a year, one earns $61 billion a year, and the other $1 billion a year, the latter will be considered in poverty. It's a statistical thing.

Whether the government puts in more money into the economy or not doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said.

 

[Woodznutz]

This, in the case of the US, has no bearing on poverty. The US cheats its own population. If a nation consists of only two citizens, one is a millionaire and the other is homeless & starving Americans will boast it's the only nation in the world where 50% of its population are millionaires.

Well, as I said before we need to separate the sheep from the goats regarding the poor. Broad knee-jerk statements and programs based on statistics isn't helpful. We need to triage the problem, helping where we can and accepting that we can't help everyone. In military terms we can't allow one wounded soldier to jeopardize the mission of an entire company. Some people are just...casualties.

 

[Woodznutz]

Not sure you understood what I said.

If you have four people. Two of them earn $60 billion a year, one earns $61 billion a year, and the other $1 billion a year, the latter will be considered in poverty. It's a statistical thing.

Whether the government puts in more money into the economy or not doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said.

If the rich were in charge of the government they wouldn't be paying 40 percent of all taxes. And, they wouldn't be running deficits every year, and there wouldn't be the national debt. The conclusion is that the rich aren't running the government. The government is run by touchy-feely liberals that don't know what they are doing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the rich were in charge of the government they wouldn't be paying 40 percent of all taxes. And, they wouldn't be running deficits every year, and there wouldn't be the national debt. The conclusion is that the rich aren't running the government. The government is run by touchy-feely liberals that don't know what they are doing.

Oh please. You've taken the rich's talking points and are pretending they're your own.

 

[GLASNOST]

I have a feeling (not sure) that you have something worth saying but I don't think you've presented it very well.

How much explanation is needed in this case?

Show me wha'cha got.

Cities want more property taxes

Yes.

and builders want more profit,

Yes

leaving low-income folks only option of renting at exorbitant prices.

Correct.

The government can step in and change that for the benefit of the low-income folks.

You see, you are smarter than you thought you were.

 

[GLASNOST]

If you have four people. Two of them earn $60 billion a year, one earns $61 billion a year, and the other $1 billion a year,

..... OK .......

the latter will be considered in poverty. It's a statistical thing.

False. Completely false. Poverty is determined by what it takes to survive (the simplest example) not on a sliding scale of opulence. Poverty is measured from the bottom up ..... not the top down.

 

[Woodznutz]

Oh please. You've taken the rich's talking points and are pretending they're your own.

Well, mine do line up with theirs.

 

[Woodznutz]

Show me wha'cha got.

Yes.

Yes

Correct.

You see, you are smarter than you thought you were.

Thanks for the good grade.

 

[GLASNOST]

Well, as I said before we need to separate the sheep from the goats

OK.

regarding the poor. Broad knee-jerk statements and programs based on statistics isn't helpful.

OK.

We need to triage the problem, helping where we can and accepting that we can't help everyone.

No, that is incorrect.

In military terms we can't allow one wounded soldier to jeopardize the mission of an entire company. Some people are just...casualties.

You are killing your own people and blaming it on the dead? No - no. You are way out of line.

 

[GLASNOST]

Thanks for the good grade.

You deserve it. All I did was appreciate it.

 

[Woodznutz]

OK.


OK.

No, that is incorrect.

You are killing your own people and blaming it on the dead? No - no. You are way out of line.

Casualties: Hard core addicts, criminals, mentally ill, physically disabled. The poor who will never enter the mainstream of life. We maintain them, we don't reward them.

 

[initforme]

What a tired canard. How do you define not able to provide for? On food assistance? On Medicaid? Rental assistance? What type of qualifications will we require? No baby until you post a fifty thousand dollar bond? How about, no baby until you finance a whole life insurance policy with riders for disability and college funding? That work?

And why not throw in some competency requirements. Like if you can't flippin cook, from scratch, no babies for you. Maybe require parenting classes for new parents, and home visits for those that are having another child.

And how do we enforce any requirements? Do we implement a new "baby police force"? If the future parents don't qualify, what do we do, force them to give the child up for adoption. To who?

I am pretty sure half of all children born in the United States are covered by Medicaid. And we are quickly approaching negative population growth. We would already be there without, wait for it, immigrants, both legal and illegal. I mean here is a thought, make it easier for poor families to support their children. The additional tax credit, that Republicans allowed to expire, did more to lower the child poverty rate than any action in history.

I mean instead of passing judgement on people why not adopt what other countries have adopted. A child allowance, the government actually strokes a check to the parents of children, usually paid quarterly and split between the mother and the father. And almost everyone qualifies, except for the very wealthy.

Wages are low, the cost of having a child is high. Maternity and paternity time is abysmal. From my perspective thingscarent set up for people to have kids and a growing number arent. Perhaps thats what america wants?

 

[Woodznutz]

What a tired canard. How do you define not able to provide for? On food assistance? On Medicaid? Rental assistance? What type of qualifications will we require? No baby until you post a fifty thousand dollar bond? How about, no baby until you finance a whole life insurance policy with riders for disability and college funding? That work?

And why not throw in some competency requirements. Like if you can't flippin cook, from scratch, no babies for you. Maybe require parenting classes for new parents, and home visits for those that are having another child.

And how do we enforce any requirements? Do we implement a new "baby police force"? If the future parents don't qualify, what do we do, force them to give the child up for adoption. To who?

I am pretty sure half of all children born in the United States are covered by Medicaid. And we are quickly approaching negative population growth. We would already be there without, wait for it, immigrants, both legal and illegal. I mean here is a thought, make it easier for poor families to support their children. The additional tax credit, that Republicans allowed to expire, did more to lower the child poverty rate than any action in history.

I mean instead of passing judgement on people why not adopt what other countries have adopted. A child allowance, the government actually strokes a check to the parents of children, usually paid quarterly and split between the mother and the father. And almost everyone qualifies, except for the very wealthy.

Let me put it a little differently.

Don't have kids until you are married and hubby has a job that can pay the bills.

 

[Woodznutz]

No doubt that working class poverty needs some work.

Are you not feeling the Trump effect yet?

Still enjoying the tax cut.

 

[initforme]

Well over half the population lives paycheck to paycheck and its impossible to save anything let alone afford a child. Tax cuts, incentives, rtc will not change the fact wages are behind, way behind.

 

[Woodznutz]

Well over half the population lives paycheck to paycheck and its impossible to save anything let alone afford a child. Tax cuts, incentives, rtc will not change the fact wages are behind, way behind.

Wages are behind for several reasons. Too many workers doing unnecessary work. Also, supply and demand. Too many immigrants lowering the pay scale.

 

[GLASNOST]

Casualties: Hard core addicts, criminals, mentally ill, physically disabled. The poor who will never enter the mainstream of life. We maintain them, we don't reward them.

Products of society through no fault of their own.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Products of society through no fault of their own.

WRONG

Products of their own decisions so yes their own fault

Society never made anyone into a criminal or addict