The Elusive Solution To 'Poverty'

[rightwinger]

But big government has no intention of reducing the numbers referred to as 'poor'....




Now...about that 'Elusive Solution to poverty'......


9."The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable—giving poor people more food, better shelter,health care, and so forth—rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty.


And we actually have a pretty solid idea of the keys to getting out of and staying out of poverty:

(1) finish school;

(2) do not get pregnant outside marriage; and

(3) get a job, any job, and stick with it.



. ...we can add one more important stepping stone onthe road out of poverty—

(4)savings and the accumulation of wealth.... “for the vast majority of households,
thepathway out of poverty is not throughconsumption, but through saving and accumulation.”
Michael Sherraden, Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1991)."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf Scribd



So.....if the solution to poverty is as clear...and as well known....why is it that hardly a dent has been made in 'poverty' in half a century an $15 trilllion?


Because the scam still works.
That's why.

The problem with Republicans is their solution is.......Get a job

The fact that all the jobs have left the areas where the poor are congregated is met with

Not my problem

Why, you don't want a job?

I have a job......Paid Messageboard Poster

 

[Agit8r]

100 years ago (before the scientific method was consistently applied to medicine) almost everyone had multiple siblings who had died prematurely.

Yet today we do not consider preventable premature death acceptable...

BECAUSE SOCIETY EVOLVED BEYOND THAT

And yet the U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world.

One of two countries where maternal mortality has risen in recent years too. It isn't necessarily because society considers it acceptable* but rather because it goes ignored by the media machine.

*although the maternal mortality figure has tracked roughly with reproductive rights, and it's recent rise correlates to the greatly increased restrictions on reproductive rights in several states, because such states do consider the death of mothers acceptable if a fetus can be saved instead. But I digress...

 

[PoliticalChic]

But big government has no intention of reducing the numbers referred to as 'poor'....




Now...about that 'Elusive Solution to poverty'......


9."The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable—giving poor people more food, better shelter,health care, and so forth—rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty.


And we actually have a pretty solid idea of the keys to getting out of and staying out of poverty:

(1) finish school;

(2) do not get pregnant outside marriage; and

(3) get a job, any job, and stick with it.



. ...we can add one more important stepping stone onthe road out of poverty—

(4)savings and the accumulation of wealth.... “for the vast majority of households,
thepathway out of poverty is not throughconsumption, but through saving and accumulation.”
Michael Sherraden, Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1991)."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf Scribd



So.....if the solution to poverty is as clear...and as well known....why is it that hardly a dent has been made in 'poverty' in half a century an $15 trilllion?


Because the scam still works.
That's why.

The problem with Republicans is their solution is.......Get a job

The fact that all the jobs have left the areas where the poor are congregated is met with

Not my problem

Why, you don't want a job?

I have a job......Paid Messageboard Poster

Another lie....like your avi.


No one would pay you for being our best source of greenhouse gases.

 

[kaz]

But big government has no intention of reducing the numbers referred to as 'poor'....




Now...about that 'Elusive Solution to poverty'......


9."The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable—giving poor people more food, better shelter,health care, and so forth—rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty.


And we actually have a pretty solid idea of the keys to getting out of and staying out of poverty:

(1) finish school;

(2) do not get pregnant outside marriage; and

(3) get a job, any job, and stick with it.



. ...we can add one more important stepping stone onthe road out of poverty—

(4)savings and the accumulation of wealth.... “for the vast majority of households,
thepathway out of poverty is not throughconsumption, but through saving and accumulation.”
Michael Sherraden, Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1991)."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf Scribd



So.....if the solution to poverty is as clear...and as well known....why is it that hardly a dent has been made in 'poverty' in half a century an $15 trilllion?


Because the scam still works.
That's why.

The problem with Republicans is their solution is.......Get a job

The fact that all the jobs have left the areas where the poor are congregated is met with

Not my problem

Why, you don't want a job?

I have a job......Paid Messageboard Poster

First, Democrats don't pay, they beg. Second, why would they pay you to post the exact same thing every other liberal posts for free?

 

[rightwinger]

But big government has no intention of reducing the numbers referred to as 'poor'....




Now...about that 'Elusive Solution to poverty'......


9."The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable—giving poor people more food, better shelter,health care, and so forth—rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty.


And we actually have a pretty solid idea of the keys to getting out of and staying out of poverty:

(1) finish school;

(2) do not get pregnant outside marriage; and

(3) get a job, any job, and stick with it.



. ...we can add one more important stepping stone onthe road out of poverty—

(4)savings and the accumulation of wealth.... “for the vast majority of households,
thepathway out of poverty is not throughconsumption, but through saving and accumulation.”
Michael Sherraden, Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1991)."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf Scribd



So.....if the solution to poverty is as clear...and as well known....why is it that hardly a dent has been made in 'poverty' in half a century an $15 trilllion?


Because the scam still works.
That's why.

The problem with Republicans is their solution is.......Get a job

The fact that all the jobs have left the areas where the poor are congregated is met with

Not my problem

Why, you don't want a job?

I have a job......Paid Messageboard Poster

Another lie....like your avi.


No one would pay you for being our best source of greenhouse gases.

I am beloved for my incisive posts....and well compensated

 

[PoliticalChic]

But big government has no intention of reducing the numbers referred to as 'poor'....




Now...about that 'Elusive Solution to poverty'......


9."The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable—giving poor people more food, better shelter,health care, and so forth—rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty.


And we actually have a pretty solid idea of the keys to getting out of and staying out of poverty:

(1) finish school;

(2) do not get pregnant outside marriage; and

(3) get a job, any job, and stick with it.



. ...we can add one more important stepping stone onthe road out of poverty—

(4)savings and the accumulation of wealth.... “for the vast majority of households,
thepathway out of poverty is not throughconsumption, but through saving and accumulation.”
Michael Sherraden, Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1991)."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf Scribd



So.....if the solution to poverty is as clear...and as well known....why is it that hardly a dent has been made in 'poverty' in half a century an $15 trilllion?


Because the scam still works.
That's why.

The problem with Republicans is their solution is.......Get a job

The fact that all the jobs have left the areas where the poor are congregated is met with

Not my problem

Why, you don't want a job?

I have a job......Paid Messageboard Poster

Another lie....like your avi.


No one would pay you for being our best source of greenhouse gases.

I am beloved for my incisive posts....and well compensated

'...well compensated' would be zero.
My point exactly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But big government doesn't define poverty the way it should be defined...'no home, no heat, no food'.....because then they'd have to admit that, essentially, there is no poverty.

Instead....they made up a definition that ensures that 'poverty' will never be eradicated.




11. The designation of poverty didn’t exist until Mollie Orshansky and the Social Security Administration invented it in 1963. It was suddenly discovered that almost 20% of Americans were below the poverty line. At that time, few were concerned, because of the optimism that had most believing that poverty was on the cusp of being eradicated. Working from earlier census data, it was determined that in 1949, 41% of Americans were below the poverty line, and the trend was continuing.


On the other hand, ‘poverty’ may be illusory. It exists in the context in which we discuss it, based on a dollar figure, …the government “developed poverty thresholds. based on the "thrifty food plan," which was the cheapest of four food plans developed by the Department of Agriculture. The food plan was "designed for temporary or emergency use when funds are low," according to the USDA.

Based on the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey from the USDA (the latest available survey at the time), Orshansky knew that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food, then multiplied the cost of the USDA economy food plan by three to arrive at the minimal yearly income a family would need.

Using 1963 as a base year, she calculated that a family of four, two adults and two children would spend $1,033 for food per year. Using her formula based on the 1955 survey, she arrived at $3,100 a year ($1,033 x3) as the poverty threshold for a family of four in 1963….


....Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau updates the poverty threshold to account for inflation.”
http://www.ocpp.org/poverty/how.htm


So....." updates the poverty threshold..."
Get the gimmick?


But once one considers that “poverty” can more properly defined by what goods and services one has, then the need for our welfare industry fades away...


...as does the need for big government.

 

[g5000]

Reading the tax code, one gets the impression that if one were denied child tax credits, a mortgage interest deduction, capital depreciation deductions, and a tax exemption for employer-sponsored health insurance, we would all be without heat or food or shelter.

Food stamps are not the only way Americans suck on the government tit. They are just the most obvious.

But I will see your food stamps, and raise you tax expenditure welfare queens $1.2 trillion.

 

[g5000]

The fact of the matter is we had a great many Americans who had no food or shelter or heat. Then we gave them government assistance and they get food and shelter and heat.

And then the retards come along and say, "We don't need welfare programs! I see no poverty here!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reading the tax code, one gets the impression that if one were denied child tax credits, a mortgage interest deduction, capital depreciation deductions, and a tax exemption for employer-sponsored health insurance, we would all be without heat or food or shelter.

Food stamps are not the only way Americans suck on the government tit. They are just the most obvious.

But I will see your food stamps, and raise you tax expenditure welfare queens $1.2 trillion.

1. According to John Stossel, the biggest welfare queens are farmers. Agricultural subsidies including direct payments, marketing loans, counter-cyclical payments, conservation subsidies, insurance, disaster aid, export subsidies, and agricultural research, taken together, have become one of the largest middle- and upper-class welfare programs in the nation.
   1. “Washington paid out a quarter of a trillion dollars in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2009, but to characterize the programs as either a “big government” bailout or another form of welfare would be manifestly unfair – to bailouts and welfare.” The Latest from AgMag EWG
   2. “From 1995 to 2009, the largest and wealthiest top 10 percent of farm program recipients collected 74 percent of all farm subsidies, with an average total payment over 15 years of $445,127 per recipient – hardly a safety net for small struggling farmers. The bottom 80 percent of farmers received an average total payment of just $8,682 per recipient.” Ibid.
2. “…payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers. Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards. The payments now account for nearly half of the nation's expanding agricultural subsidy system, a complex web that has little basis in fairness or efficiency. What began in the 1930s as a limited safety net for working farmers has swollen into a far-flung infrastructure of entitlements that has cost $172 billion over the past decade. In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare.” Farm Program Pays 1.3 Billion to People Who Don t Farm

Again: “In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare.”

 

[Agit8r]

But big government doesn't define poverty the way it should be defined...'no home, no heat, no food'.....because then they'd have to admit that, essentially, there is no poverty.

Instead....they made up a definition that ensures that 'poverty' will never be eradicated.




11. The designation of poverty didn’t exist until Mollie Orshansky and the Social Security Administration invented it in 1963. It was suddenly discovered that almost 20% of Americans were below the poverty line. At that time, few were concerned, because of the optimism that had most believing that poverty was on the cusp of being eradicated. Working from earlier census data, it was determined that in 1949, 41% of Americans were below the poverty line, and the trend was continuing.


On the other hand, ‘poverty’ may be illusory. It exists in the context in which we discuss it, based on a dollar figure, …the government “developed poverty thresholds. based on the "thrifty food plan," which was the cheapest of four food plans developed by the Department of Agriculture. The food plan was "designed for temporary or emergency use when funds are low," according to the USDA.

Based on the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey from the USDA (the latest available survey at the time), Orshansky knew that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food, then multiplied the cost of the USDA economy food plan by three to arrive at the minimal yearly income a family would need.

Using 1963 as a base year, she calculated that a family of four, two adults and two children would spend $1,033 for food per year. Using her formula based on the 1955 survey, she arrived at $3,100 a year ($1,033 x3) as the poverty threshold for a family of four in 1963….


....Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau updates the poverty threshold to account for inflation.”
http://www.ocpp.org/poverty/how.htm


So....." updates the poverty threshold..."
Get the gimmick?


But once one considers that “poverty” can more properly defined by what goods and services one has, then the need for our welfare industry fades away...


...as does the need for big government.

It need hardly be said that the relative lack of your definition of poverty would not be so if we had not adopted such programs.

 

[Marxist]

We need to change the method of distribution, base it on use value, not exchange value. Also, we need work to be based on what society needs, instead of what is profitable for a select minority. We also need to look at capitalism as a whole, the waste of surplus, the exploitaition of those in poverty, private ownership of food production and distribution.. Oh, world hunger is still a massive problem, and capitalism has begun its collapse, luckily. I give it another 100 years, being generous.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The fact of the matter is we had a great many Americans who had no food or shelter or heat. Then we gave them government assistance and they get food and shelter and heat.

And then the retards come along and say, "We don't need welfare programs! I see no poverty here!"

It is almost surprising how frequently you have no idea what you are talking about.

Kind of an inverse 'gift' you have.


1. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...." "Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.

2. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.

3. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.


4. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work,and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But big government doesn't define poverty the way it should be defined...'no home, no heat, no food'.....because then they'd have to admit that, essentially, there is no poverty.

Instead....they made up a definition that ensures that 'poverty' will never be eradicated.




11. The designation of poverty didn’t exist until Mollie Orshansky and the Social Security Administration invented it in 1963. It was suddenly discovered that almost 20% of Americans were below the poverty line. At that time, few were concerned, because of the optimism that had most believing that poverty was on the cusp of being eradicated. Working from earlier census data, it was determined that in 1949, 41% of Americans were below the poverty line, and the trend was continuing.


On the other hand, ‘poverty’ may be illusory. It exists in the context in which we discuss it, based on a dollar figure, …the government “developed poverty thresholds. based on the "thrifty food plan," which was the cheapest of four food plans developed by the Department of Agriculture. The food plan was "designed for temporary or emergency use when funds are low," according to the USDA.

Based on the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey from the USDA (the latest available survey at the time), Orshansky knew that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food, then multiplied the cost of the USDA economy food plan by three to arrive at the minimal yearly income a family would need.

Using 1963 as a base year, she calculated that a family of four, two adults and two children would spend $1,033 for food per year. Using her formula based on the 1955 survey, she arrived at $3,100 a year ($1,033 x3) as the poverty threshold for a family of four in 1963….


....Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau updates the poverty threshold to account for inflation.”
http://www.ocpp.org/poverty/how.htm


So....." updates the poverty threshold..."
Get the gimmick?


But once one considers that “poverty” can more properly defined by what goods and services one has, then the need for our welfare industry fades away...


...as does the need for big government.

It need hardly be said that the relative lack of your definition of poverty would not be so if we had not adopted such programs.

I’d have to be Queequeg to interpret that post!

 

[Marxist]

The fact of the matter is we had a great many Americans who had no food or shelter or heat. Then we gave them government assistance and they get food and shelter and heat.

And then the retards come along and say, "We don't need welfare programs! I see no poverty here!"

It is almost surprising how frequently you have no idea what you are talking about.

Kind of an inverse 'gift' you have.


1. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...." "Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.

2. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.

3. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.


4. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work,and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.

All you do is quote books and assume you're correct about everything.

 

[g5000]

Again: “In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare.”

Subsidies can go, too.

But $25 billion doesn't even reach the level of "chump change" next to $1.2 trillion annual spending on tax expenditures.

 

[Agit8r]

The fact of the matter is we had a great many Americans who had no food or shelter or heat. Then we gave them government assistance and they get food and shelter and heat.

And then the retards come along and say, "We don't need welfare programs! I see no poverty here!"

It is almost surprising how frequently you have no idea what you are talking about.

Kind of an inverse 'gift' you have.


1. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...." "Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.

2. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.

3. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.


4. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work,and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.

All you do is quote books and assume you're correct about everything.

You mean she assumes that Ann Coulter is correct about everything. Because that is who does her thinking for her.

 

[Agit8r]

“In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare.”

Some states are largely dependent on such subsidies for their economies to function. Mostly "red" states...

 

[hipeter924]

Start colonizing other planets and mining asteroids, to decrease the costs of precious metals and fuels. Then, create jobs and employment in space exploration - as Earth is far too crowded.

 

[BluesLegend]

22% of Democrats have received food stamps vs only 10% of Republicans, more than double. Of the total number of people who have received food stamps 31% were black, 22% Hispanic vs only 15% white. Source - Pew Research Center