Poverty

#51
#51
volinbham said:
Already been covered on the last one but at what point would you conclude that throwing money via government programs at the problem ain't solving the problem? We've been at it for almost 50 years and the numbers haven't changed. You know the definition of insanity...
Click to expand...

to take it a bit further, there is no doubt whatsoever that we have exacerbated the problem and entitlements has been the biggest government outlay by miles since FDR created the welfare state.
 
#52
#52
BigPapaVol said:
to take it a bit further, there is no doubt whatsoever that we have exacerbated the problem and entitlements has been the biggest government outlay by miles since FDR created the welfare state.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt in my mind that 300-400 years from now, history will examine the downfall of the greatest country of all-time and point to one man as the impetus of said downfall: Franklin Roosevelt.
 
#53
#53
I would argue China's relative success has a lot more to do with increasing personal incentives and individual capitalistic opportunities, than government "intervention." It's from the relaxing of government intervention.
 
#54
#54
Biko said:
There is no doubt in my mind that 300-400 years from now, history will examine the downfall of the greatest country of all-time and point to one man as the impetus of said downfall: Franklin Roosevelt.
Click to expand...

That somewhat depends on who writes the books, doesn't it?
 
#55
#55
IPorange said:
That somewhat depends on who writes the books, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

What happens if we turn into Greece? To what would people refer as the cause? Who implemented most- and paved the way for others- of those programs? Who filled the court with like-minded whackjobs? I think it will be pretty evident, but one could also argue that one nation simply can't act as world police.
 
#56
#56
FDR certainly played a role but he was at the end of the first generation of Progressives. Interestingly enough, it was William Jennings Bryant who brought Progressivism to the fore in both parties around 1910. He failed in his presidential bid but made such a persuasive case for Progressive ideals that both parties bought in and started the process of trying to out liberal each other.

Liberals have long been satisfied to let that dirty conservative republican Hoover take the fall for the Great Depression. The truth is that Hoover was a Progressive as much if not more so than FDR. Progressivism (later relabeled liberalism to escape nasty little associations with things like fascism and eugenics) reigned supreme in poltics and on most college campuses from the early 1900's to at least 1980.
 
#57
#57
volinbham said:
Already been covered on the last one but at what point would you conclude that throwing money via government programs at the problem ain't solving the problem? We've been at it for almost 50 years and the numbers haven't changed. You know the definition of insanity...
Click to expand...

I think that's the only thing keeping some people out of landfill, bham.

The numbers changed dramatically for the better, actually, for 30 glorious years after WWII. Sorry, this curve only starts circa 1960, but you see the trend (get worse under Reagan, as expected):

fe1.gif


My stance on poverty: erradicate it. I would measure it via QoL rather than the standard gross, economic instruments.
 
#58
#58
BigPapaVol said:
to take it a bit further, there is no doubt whatsoever that we have exacerbated the problem and entitlements has been the biggest government outlay by miles since FDR created the welfare state.
Click to expand...

That clearly is not the case. See above.
 
#59
#59
BigPapaVol said:
let's reason through this horsecrap report.

First, an idiotic term like food secure should make every bell, buzzer and whistle on earth go off to help alert you to the fabricated nature of the information. It's political speak, period.

Second, why on earth does this office exist and why in the hell would the author of these reports not come up with idiotic terms like "food secure" so that his gig is self perpetuating and he can procure more money for his growing fiefdom and he can help make the class warfare argument more strongly next year. Wonder how many brainstorming sessions it took to come up with "food secure" so that the number could be made absolutely as large as possible.

Wonder why it doesn't address the enormous number of outlets available today to feed these "food insecure" in America? What's up with that?
Click to expand...

You know, you don't like speculation on the football board. You don't like data and facts on the Politics board. I can't believe I haven't realized this before: YOU ARE A CURMUDGEON!

They define food security in great detail in the report. I'm sure you would have an equal issue on "what does 'hungry' mean?" if they used that term.

However, let's talk about the USDA. Even Joe Stiglitz wants it gone. Why is it there? Well, isn't the short answer that agriculture has never been well governed by market forces? Was it not created out of just such market failures? Did it not oversee the Green Revolution not just here, but around the world?
 
#60
#60
Biko said:
There is no doubt in my mind that 300-400 years from now, history will examine the downfall of the greatest country of all-time and point to one man as the impetus of said downfall: Franklin Roosevelt.
Click to expand...

Franky boy couldn't have done it without the groundwork by Woody Wilson though, you surely must admit!
 
#61
#61
tigervol9802 said:
I hate to be the guy that says this, but if you are an adult that lives in poverty in America, 75% of the time it's because you want to/don't have the desire to work hard enough to not be.
Click to expand...

Assuming that the minimum wage is $7.50/hr. that translates to $15,600/year. Wow, that might cover your health insurance. You slackers....
 
#62
#62
overseasorange2 said:
Assuming that the minimum wage is $7.50/hr. that translates to $15,600/year. Wow, that might cover your health insurance. You slackers....
Click to expand...

Further, let's assume people work minimum wage for a reason. Then let's assume that multiple jobs are an option. Then, let's stop acting silly enough to assume that minimum wage folks are rolling on Cadillac healthcare.

Maybe the econ is lost on you as it is for Gibbs, but minimum wage hikes are pure inflation. Nobody gains anything, save overseas folks awaiting thee shiny new $0.50 per hour gigs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#65
#65
overseasorange2 said:
Assuming that the minimum wage is $7.50/hr. that translates to $15,600/year. Wow, that might cover your health insurance. You slackers....
Click to expand...

Theories, stats and numbers aside in this debate, I really don't have a ton of sympathy for people who are capable of holding a better paying job but choose to work for minimum wage or close to it.

In my interactions, which happens a lot, these people are fully capable of doing more but choose that they don't care to provide for themselves or their families. Now, they may care about their car, going out every Friday/Saturday night with their friends, recreation, etc., but actually doing something to enhance their lot in life is not on the list.

You really, really don't want to get me started on the practical real-life application of my views/beliefs. It's not pretty.
 
#66
#66
utgibbs said:
You know, you don't like speculation on the football board. You don't like data and facts on the Politics board. I can't believe I haven't realized this before: YOU ARE A CURMUDGEON!

They define food security in great detail in the report. I'm sure you would have an equal issue on "what does 'hungry' mean?" if they used that term.

However, let's talk about the USDA. Even Joe Stiglitz wants it gone. Why is it there? Well, isn't the short answer that agriculture has never been well governed by market forces? Was it not created out of just such market failures? Did it not oversee the Green Revolution not just here, but around the world?
Click to expand...

The greenie weenie revolution is practically dead, the Jolly Green Giant ate a batch of rancid yak butter in Bhutan and when I called the Farm Bureau guy and inquired if the JGG was dead, he said not yeti but his abdominal condition was abominable!!
 
#67
#67
utgibbs said:
You know, you don't like speculation on the football board. You don't like data and facts on the Politics board. I can't believe I haven't realized this before: YOU ARE A CURMUDGEON!

They define food security in great detail in the report. I'm sure you would have an equal issue on "what does 'hungry' mean?" if they used that term.

However, let's talk about the USDA. Even Joe Stiglitz wants it gone. Why is it there? Well, isn't the short answer that agriculture has never been well governed by market forces? Was it not created out of just such market failures? Did it not oversee the Green Revolution not just here, but around the world?
Click to expand...
I don't care if you speculate. The problem comes in when you try to claim that speculation has some sort of merit that overtakes what actually happened.

Did you actually read the definition of food secure? Are you really telling me that is great detail? It's clearly an effort to make the terminology as all encompassing as possible while still sounding ominous. Had they used hungry, it would have been equally useless. If we were really concerned, his worthless function would be used to make sure that programs like food stamps were being used to buy nutrition instead of cigarettes, liquor and birthday cakes.

It's not about the USDA. It's about his office that exists for the purpose of determining crap like "food security" in America, as if the food stamp program doesn't cover it well enough. I know you are itching to justify more governmental positions and to pretend that the market needs the USDA to keep paying farmers for nothing, but it's about his function, which is clearly worthless, but apparently self perpetuating.
 
#68
#68
overseasorange2 said:
Yea, he could work two 8 hour jobs. Make his wife do the same, and put those damn lazy-ass kids to work also.
Click to expand...

if hunger was the mohuckin issue, my ass would be working every job available. You can make excuses for people being at the minimum wage level, but it just looks whiny.

Can you imagine our parents acting like working two jobs for little pay and working again at home was a problem? Can you imagine them standing in freaking line for government cheese? Thank goodness we've had enlightenment so modern parents can do exactly that and educate their kids to keep it going.
 
#69
#69
BigPapaVol said:
if hunger was the mohuckin issue, my ass would be working every job available. You can make excuses for people being at the minimum wage level, but it just looks whiny.

Can you imagine our parents acting like working two jobs for little pay and working again at home was a problem? Can you imagine them standing in freaking line for government cheese? Thank goodness we've had enlightenment so modern parents can do exactly that and educate their kids to keep it going.
Click to expand...

1. If it was a matter of feeding my family there is no way I would work a minimum wage job.

2. If I had to work one, I would work 20 hours a day to provide for my family.
 
#70
#70
tigervol9802 said:
1. If it was a matter of feeding my family there is no way I would work a minimum wage job.

2. If I had to work one, I would work 20 hours a day to provide for my family.
Click to expand...

yeah, but that sounds hard. Life should be easier for those incapable of providing a decent living for themselves.
 
#73
#73
utgibbs said:
My stance on poverty: erradicate it. I would measure it via QoL rather than the standard gross, economic instruments.
Click to expand...


the problem is that poverty is a relative term not an absolute. the bar keeps moving and the bottom will always be termed "poverty" regardless of what measure you use.

QoL is as subjective as it comes since true QoL is an internally developed perception of the individual not an external measurement.
 
#74
#74
droski said:
people who work for minimum wage: illegal immigrants and students. FACT.
Click to expand...

Almost 43 percent of all minimum wage workers are children, 26 percent are married family heads or spouses, 11 percent are single family heads, and 17 percent are single people (another 3 percent are other relatives).

source: Heritage Foundation
 
#75
#75
BigPapaVol said:
if hunger was the mohuckin issue, my ass would be working every job available. You can make excuses for people being at the minimum wage level, but it just looks whiny.

Can you imagine our parents acting like working two jobs for little pay and working again at home was a problem? Can you imagine them standing in freaking line for government cheese? Thank goodness we've had enlightenment so modern parents can do exactly that and educate their kids to keep it going.
Click to expand...

If I was one of them, maybe. Perhaps I just have more compassion for people in the worst recession in my lifetime. Sorry, I'll try not to let it happen again:)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top