Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And a decline in the ratio of people in the workforce.
Our economy is grinding down towards a Eurostyle low growth / permanent structurally high unemployment rate for a reason, bub.
Off topic, but Europes economic downfall had much to do with combining the economies of too many countries sharing one monetary value. Those countries felt the very same effect as a result of the banking crisis BEGUN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, with runs on banks, massive layoffs and loss of revenue as a result. Nice try, but no rose.
Who knew? It was all the Euro... nothing at all to do with 3 day workweeks and retiring at 42.
And yet the poor are still with us. Shouldn't that be some sort of wakeup call?
The fact remains that the periods of greatest reduction in poverty in America came through prosperity in the private sector, such prosperity created by the private sector, and not via government initiative. Sure government can claim short term results from this or that initiative. And then it tends to turn a blind eye to the long term unintended negative consequences of those same initiatives.
I think it is time to stop turning a blind eye.
Thomas Sowell has lived it and has devoted a great deal of his professional career researching, studying, and writing about the history of black Americans. He has long maintained that black Americans were the group advancing the most percentagewise in prosperity overall up until LBJ's 'War on Poverty.' Since that time the advancement came to a screeching halt. He blames liberal government policies for the destruction of the black family and the institutions that supported it and for creating much of the problems we have today.
A few years ago he wrote this for Capitalist Magazine:
As it has been said there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
I think we as a nation need to seriously rethink this before we consign more generations of Americans to crushing poverty and permanent unemployment.
More statistics, more blame, more rhetoric. Does Sowell offer an alternative?
I reiterate my only alternative, which is EDUCATION. Will Thomas Sowell embrace the efforts of Arne Duncan who's primary target is under-performing schools? Duncan correctly states that when children are turned around, communities get turned around.
Yes. Sowell offers alternatives not unlike what many conservatives here are offering. You know, all those proposal and ideas that you are blowing off and then accuse others of having no plan? He has written numerous essays and books on the subject, and anybody who really cares about the poor, most especially the black poor, can learn a great deal by reading his stuff.
He starts with the premise that when you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?
Sometimes it is important NOT to try to fix something. Most especially trying to fix something that isn't broken will almost always create unintended problems and produce consequences that make the situation worse.
For the committed authoritarian central planner like Naggie, "having a plan" begins and ends with devising a "new and improved" Rube Goldberg gubmint program.Yes. Sowell offers alternatives not unlike what many conservatives here are offering. You know, all those proposal and ideas that you are blowing off and then accuse others of having no plan? He has written numerous essays and books on the subject, and anybody who really cares about the poor, most especially the black poor, can learn a great deal by reading his stuff.
He starts with the premise that when you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?
Sometimes it is important NOT to try to fix something. Most especially trying to fix something that isn't broken will almost always create unintended problems and produce consequences that make the situation worse.
Anything less is tantamount to throwing gramma out into the street and letting the chiillllldrrreeeennnn starve.
For the committed authoritarian central planner like Naggie, "having a plan" begins and ends with devising a "new and improved" Rube Goldberg gubmint program.Yes. Sowell offers alternatives not unlike what many conservatives here are offering. You know, all those proposal and ideas that you are blowing off and then accuse others of having no plan? He has written numerous essays and books on the subject, and anybody who really cares about the poor, most especially the black poor, can learn a great deal by reading his stuff.
He starts with the premise that when you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?
Sometimes it is important NOT to try to fix something. Most especially trying to fix something that isn't broken will almost always create unintended problems and produce consequences that make the situation worse.
Anything less is tantamount to throwing gramma out into the street and the chiillllldrrreeeennnn starve.
She isn't alone. You run across committed leftists everywhere. They are in a fairly small minority, but they all seem to be very vocal, opinionated, judgmental, and are convinced they speak with much authority. And they are convinced that those of us who lean toward conservative values and see those as the best answer to address many if not most (even all) social problems in America--they see us as selfish, hateful, uncaring, uncharitable, and intent on punishing the pitiful poor.
The liberal feels righteous when they dictate 'conscience' to somebody else and most especially if they can forcibly confiscate another's property to give to somebody else. It is really easy to be generous with other people's money. As Maggie Thatcher once said though, sooner or later you run out of other people's money and usually find that nothing much has changed except many more people are poorer.
The conservative feels good when s/he rolls up the sleeves, wades in, and gets it done and ends up the day dirty, maybe even a bit bloodied, and bone tired but knows s/he left a situation better than it was. Charity to a conservative means voluntary giving of your own energy, gifts, and resources.
A fundamental principle of economics has never been effectively challenged by anybody. If you want something to decrease, tax, punish or penalize it.
If you want something to increase, subsidize it.
That principles also applies to much involving the 'poor'.
The root cause is philosophical, not that I harbor any illusion that you can comprehend this.
So someone with no basic education, trying to raise 3 kids alone and working two jobs should give up her refrigerator and her mode of transportation to and from those jobs because she hasn't "earned" it? Gotcha. I'm sure such a mother sits around wringing her hands that she should take a more "philosophical" approach to life.
How about the mother setting priorities for children:
education
job
1 dream
own place
romance
in that order
Now if she gets married and has a divorce or is widowed, she knows she can do it, on her own.
Get it?
I will go so far to say that there are some in poverty through absolutely no fault of their own but simply due to miserable unfortunate circumstances or just plain bad luck. The difference between such people and those who make bad choices is that the bad luck crowd generally do pull themselves out of it. Those folks I am 100% for giving a hand up to because they will be grateful and return more than they get.
I doubt anyone argues with that. I don't either. But the problem is if you eliminate an entire program--Section 8 housing, for example, those that need it will be just as hurt if not more so than those who are gaming the system. Once again! We (I) know what the problem is. But what is YOUR solution?
As for the rest I think Ben Franklin's advice has a great deal of merit:
"All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse."
" I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." -- Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1776
Even Ben Franklin doesn't offer any suggestion for how to do that.
Sure he did. As have several have done right here on this thread. As I did in direct response to your comment. Which you have continued to ignore.
Until you respond coherently to that, I have no choice but to believe you are just here to snipe, judge, and condemn and have no intention of contributing to the discussion.
Even Ben Franklin doesn't offer any suggestion for how to do that.
Sure he did. As have several have done right here on this thread. As I did in direct response to your comment. Which you have continued to ignore.
Until you respond coherently to that, I have no choice but to believe you are just here to snipe, judge, and condemn and have no intention of contributing to the discussion.
You have proposed nothing I've seen but making people be more values conscious. Over and over again. You posted no proposed remedies by Thomas Sowell nor Benjamin Franklin (although he really doesn't count, because the entire population was only around 4 million and it's now about 305 million). The only "proposals" I've seen were those by that Army sargeant, and although he was on the right track, his nastiness was such that no one of any import would listen to him anyway.
Two real options:Even Ben Franklin doesn't offer any suggestion for how to do that.
Sure he did. As have several have done right here on this thread. As I did in direct response to your comment. Which you have continued to ignore.
Until you respond coherently to that, I have no choice but to believe you are just here to snipe, judge, and condemn and have no intention of contributing to the discussion.
You have proposed nothing I've seen but making people be more values conscious. Over and over again. You posted no proposed remedies by Thomas Sowell nor Benjamin Franklin (although he really doesn't count, because the entire population was only around 4 million and it's now about 305 million). The only "proposals" I've seen were those by that Army sargeant, and although he was on the right track, his nastiness was such that no one of any import would listen to him anyway.
If you are "serious" about addressing it, I'd like to see a concrete "PLAN" after all the addressing it. Because rhetoric is all we've had for decades and it's demonstrated once again by your thread. You propose no plan that would be workable when you consider the number of people that would need to be participants in any plan. You only talk about the values of conservatives and how values should somehow be enough to magically transform poorly educated and nonproductive people into intelligent, educated, and acceptable members of society. .....?
Blah, blah blah....Yeah, maybe we need another stinkin' Federal program..
Rhetoric being "all we've seen for decades....????" (conveniently ignoring the Department of Health and Human Services, Dept of Education, Dept.....): Jaysus, Maggie your ignorance has no limit.
Here are just the "A's"
A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies (A): USA.gov
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Administration for Native Americans
Administration on Aging (AoA)
Administration on Developmental Disabilities
Administrative Committee of the Federal Register
Administrative Conference of the United States
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
African Development Foundation
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Agency for International Development
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Agriculture Department (USDA)
Air Force
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau (Justice)
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (Treasury)
American Battle Monuments Commission
AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Appalachian Regional Commission
Architect of the Capitol
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board)
Archives (National Archives and Records Administration)
Arctic Research Commission
Arizona State, County, and City Websites
Arkansas State, County, and City Websites
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Arms Control and International Security
Army
Army Corps of Engineers
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee
Atlantic Fleet Forces Command
As I already pointed out, the Republicans have been in charge at least equally as many terms as Democrats for the last 30 years. That you morans continue to blame all of this as a "liberal" problem promulgated only by Democrats is fucking ludicrous.
Poverty is the problem poorly coordinated fragmented government bureaucracy.
If indeed we had a "War on Poverty," it is no surprise that we would lose it. Frankly, based on the huge numbers of illegal immigrants entering the USA to escape poverty, the necessity for a " US War on Poverty" seems to be questionable.
However, the fact is that the USA was never, and has never been, and never will be, designed to have a strong central government.
to this response.
Poverty is the problem poorly coordinated fragmented government bureaucracy.
If indeed we had a "War on Poverty," it is no surprise that we would lose it. Frankly, based on the huge numbers of illegal immigrants entering the USA to escape poverty, the necessity for a " US War on Poverty" seems to be questionable.
However, the fact is that the USA was never, and has never been, and never will be, designed to have a strong central government.
Yes, it is obvious that the war on poverty was either an impossibility at the federal level or was so screwed up by incompetence and failure to anticipate or deal with unintended negative consequences that it is safe to say that war was lost even before it began. Otherwise $10 trillion to reduce poverty would have essentially eradicated it. It didn't.
And your comment about millions of people trying to get into the USA in order to escape poverty is maybe the very best observation of the thread.
I hope you're right that the USA will never have a strong central government because we have a Congress and a President/Administration who are gung ho to create one, And we have too many of our friends who are cheering them on. The more that happens, however, the less the USA will be the new concept and ideal envisioned by the Founders and the more we can expect less prosperity and opportunity for most.
Okay Maggie, I apologize. You did go back and respond to that post after I pointed out you had not done so. You and I obviously have a very different definition for 'plan' however. You seem to be confusing 'plan' with 'procedure' but let's get past that for the moment.
You say beans and rice are hardly nutritious? That would come as astounding news to nutritionists who have studied the diets of people who pretty much depend on rice and beans to survive and those of us who are rounding up and sending tons of the stuff to the poor in Mexico who don't ask for anything else. Those who get enough of them are not malnourished.
But shoot. What do YOU consider the proper diet to feed people who are on the government dole? You think they should get steak and chicken? How about crab and lobster? Artichokes? Asparagus? Broccoli? Where do you draw the line between what people need and what people would like to have?
Survival on strictly beans and rice is what third world countries provide. This is the United States of America, the richest country in the world. Chicken is cheap. The claim that food stamps are regularly used for lobster is ridiculous. That, of course, is an infamous right-wing talking point which you're simply parroting. Do they buy junk food? OF COURSE!!! Junk food is c.h.e.a.p. Should a shopping list of covered food items be provided when someone qualifies for food stamp allotments? Probably not, but a list of exclusions (like lobster) probably should be included. After all, there are exclusions for toilet paper which always seemed odd to me, so they might as well add steak, lobster, 90% hamburger, asparagus and POM juice to that list.
How do you equate making people comfortable in poverty to be more compassionate than giving people incentive to want to escape poverty? Can you not believe that making people comfortable in poverty has contributed to generations of people living in poverty?
Yes, I do. And in so many words I've said so. But they will not have the "incentive" until they are pushed out of lives of illiteracy and ignorance BY EDUCATION. Why haven't you countered that, which I've harped on throughout? It's okay to agree with me, you know, on at least one thing.
I have personally inspected enough Section 8 housing to know for a fact that many people who live in it don't give a flying fig about what happens to it. Do you really have an objection to a requirement that people who live in government housing be required to keep it clean and well maintained? And that contents be inventoried so we know when people are no longer indigent but are affording things that suggest they can also afford to pay their own rent?What possible objection could you have to that?
I've already addressed the maintenance issue with Section 8 housing, but inspectors cannot legally go any further than "damage" to the property. They have no control (nor should they) over how 'messy' a tenant is. And as for inventorying their PERSONAL ITEMS, I can only imagine how someone from the right would be screaming from the rooftops that their Constitutional privacy rights had been violated. What if a big screen television set was a gift? Why should anyone have to "prove" that? Are you kidding????? That pesky Constitution gets in the way of your best laid plans, eh?
Do you think people receiving food, housing, clothing, education, transportation, child care etc. etc. for free should have absolutely no expectations or requirements imposed on them in return for that?
No, I do not. And there ARE strict requirements already in place (which you should know, since you claim to work with these people regularly). But once again, I do not for one moment think that most people who find themselves in the position of having to accept government social benefits do so with the intent to con the system(s). Bad behavior is NOT the norm.
And temporary or permanent sterilization is Hitleresque you say? (Boy it didn't take long for Godwin's law to be evoked, huh.) So rather than ensure that more children will not be born into poverty, you prefer to encourage poor people to have more and more children that will grow up in poverty? And, as history has revealed, will likely remain in poverty as will their children. How do you square that with compassion?
The man was suggesting sterilization, for God's sake. Maybe I should have said "Saddam-esque"?? What difference does it make?
You probably object to my suggestion that people who cannot or will not adequately suppot their children should not have children or the children should be taken away until they can and will adequately support them. It wouldn't take more than a relatively short experiment with that policy before we would get back to the times when parents expected to support their families and children at risk in the home were rare.
I never objected to that; in fact, I offered a solution similar to Welfare to Work where the parent(s) who seem to have no control over the number of children they produce be required to get training for a job by a certain time and in the meantime if they have another child, that child would not be added to their monthly welfare check.
And yes dear. I have devoted a great deal of my adult life, both as a vocation and as a volunteer, working directly with the poor and low income families. That is a far different situation than helping intermittantly with relief for the homeless or a part time volunteer at school which, though commendable, is not at all the same thing.
Poverty is the problem poorly coordinated fragmented government bureaucracy.
If indeed we had a "War on Poverty," it is no surprise that we would lose it. Frankly, based on the huge numbers of illegal immigrants entering the USA to escape poverty, the necessity for a " US War on Poverty" seems to be questionable.
However, the fact is that the USA was never, and has never been, and never will be, designed to have a strong central government.
Yes, it is obvious that the war on poverty was either an impossibility at the federal level or was so screwed up by incompetence and failure to anticipate or deal with unintended negative consequences that it is safe to say that war was lost even before it began. Otherwise $10 trillion to reduce poverty would have essentially eradicated it. It didn't.
And your comment about millions of people trying to get into the USA in order to escape poverty is maybe the very best observation of the thread.
I hope you're right that the USA will never have a strong central government because we have a Congress and a President/Administration who are gung ho to create one, And we have too many of our friends who are cheering them on. The more that happens, however, the less the USA will be the new concept and ideal envisioned by the Founders and the more we can expect less prosperity and opportunity for most.
No, the congress is NOT controlled by those who are "Gung Ho" to create a strong central government.
The reason why we can never have a strong central government is because we are constantly electing (changing) the leadership with or without the 22nd amendment. Admittedly, the Presidential term limit has been challenged by both Barney Frank (H.J.Res.5. Introduced January 6, 2009) and Harry Reid ( S.J.RES.36. January 31, 1989), who have produced bills repealing the 22nd Amendment. However, limiting terms by simply electing someone else has been overwhelmingly effecting in ensuring a weaker centralized government.
Blah, blah blah....Yeah, maybe we need another stinkin' Federal program..
Rhetoric being "all we've seen for decades....????" (conveniently ignoring the Department of Health and Human Services, Dept of Education, Dept.....): Jaysus, Maggie your ignorance has no limit.
Here are just the "A's"
A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies (A): USA.gov
As I already pointed out, the Republicans have been in charge at least equally as many terms as Democrats for the last 30 years. That you morans continue to blame all of this as a "liberal" problem promulgated only by Democrats is fucking ludicrous.
I often overestimate your ability to mentally process any issue more complex than quoting W.C. Fields, and even that you fuck-up.
Um....I never said anything about Repubs or Dems.....but its interesting that you would like to make this some sort of partisan issue after claiming that the problem is empty rhetoric.
Your reputation precedes you. OF COURSE you wish to blame it all on liberals. Nice spin.
Let me slow down for you to catch up.
If you feel smug attempting to seem more intelligent, then knock yourself out. Past experience with you says otherwise.
Poverty is the problem poorly coordinated fragmented government bureaucracy.
If indeed we had a "War on Poverty," it is no surprise that we would lose it. Frankly, based on the huge numbers of illegal immigrants entering the USA to escape poverty, the necessity for a " US War on Poverty" seems to be questionable.
However, the fact is that the USA was never, and has never been, and never will be, designed to have a strong central government.
So someone with no basic education, trying to raise 3 kids alone and working two jobs should give up her refrigerator and her mode of transportation to and from those jobs because she hasn't "earned" it? Gotcha. I'm sure such a mother sits around wringing her hands that she should take a more "philosophical" approach to life.
How about the mother setting priorities for children:
education
job
1 dream
own place
romance
in that order
Now if she gets married and has a divorce or is widowed, she knows she can do it, on her own.
Get it?
We all get it, but a lot of folks don't. Women will have children, period. It is better in a secure financial and personal situation. However . . . we will pay for the "mistakes" on the front end or the back end. Let me say that again: we will pay for it one way or another. Let's make them taxpayers whenever we can instead of the wards of someone.
As I already pointed out, the Republicans have been in charge at least equally as many terms as Democrats for the last 30 years. That you morans continue to blame all of this as a "liberal" problem promulgated only by Democrats is fucking ludicrous.
I often overestimate your ability to mentally process any issue more complex than quoting W.C. Fields, and even that you fuck-up.
Um....I never said anything about Repubs or Dems.....but its interesting that you would like to make this some sort of partisan issue after claiming that the problem is empty rhetoric.
Your reputation precedes you. OF COURSE you wish to blame it all on liberals. Nice spin.
Let me slow down for you to catch up.
If you feel smug attempting to seem more intelligent, then knock yourself out. Past experience with you says otherwise.
Poverty is the problem poorly coordinated fragmented government bureaucracy.
If indeed we had a "War on Poverty," it is no surprise that we would lose it. Frankly, based on the huge numbers of illegal immigrants entering the USA to escape poverty, the necessity for a " US War on Poverty" seems to be questionable.
However, the fact is that the USA was never, and has never been, and never will be, designed to have a strong central government.
The Constitution clearly was designed to have a strong central government, decentralized only by the rights of states. But federal law always has, and will continue to trump state law where conflicts arise.
For the committed authoritarian central planner like Naggie, "having a plan" begins and ends with devising a "new and improved" Rube Goldberg gubmint program.
Anything less is tantamount to throwing gramma out into the street and the chiillllldrrreeeennnn starve.
She isn't alone. You run across committed leftists everywhere. They are in a fairly small minority, but they all seem to be very vocal, opinionated, judgmental, and are convinced they speak with much authority. And they are convinced that those of us who lean toward conservative values and see those as the best answer to address many if not most (even all) social problems in America--they see us as selfish, hateful, uncaring, uncharitable, and intent on punishing the pitiful poor.
The liberal feels righteous when they dictate 'conscience' to somebody else and most especially if they can forcibly confiscate another's property to give to somebody else. It is really easy to be generous with other people's money. As Maggie Thatcher once said though, sooner or later you run out of other people's money and usually find that nothing much has changed except many more people are poorer.
The conservative feels good when s/he rolls up the sleeves, wades in, and gets it done and ends up the day dirty, maybe even a bit bloodied, and bone tired but knows s/he left a situation better than it was. Charity to a conservative means voluntary giving of your own energy, gifts, and resources.
A fundamental principle of economics has never been effectively challenged by anybody. If you want something to decrease, tax, punish or penalize it.
If you want something to increase, subsidize it.
That principles also applies to much involving the 'poor'.
This is the point where you give conservatives so much praise I feel like gagging, because from my perch, I see the "conservative" view as being that of Oddball, Samson and Zander--ridiculously immature, completely void of any common sense rationality, with you attempting to play the mediator but having strict conservative "values" that get in the way of seeing the whole picture.
No, dear, we simply agree that something needs to be done about the cycle of poverty other than just throwing money at it, but disagree that YOUR methods of "compassionate conservatism" would actually put food on the table and roofs over the heads of those who really do need it. It's morans like Oddball and Samson that don't even allow someone like me to give my opinions without lacing theirs with insults. How is that helpful? Who is more part of the problem rather than the solution? Me? I don't think so...
