Skip to comments.Poverty has to “exist” if we are to fix the problem of poverty
Posted on 07/06/2012 6:16:40 PM PDT by Starman417
Hear me out. Ill end this with a cherry on top, a simple five second mental exercise that exposes the fallacy that is known as wealth disparity.
Federal welfare spending in fiscal year 2011 totaled $668 billion***, spread out over 126 programs, while the poverty rate remains high at 15.1 percent, roughly where it was in 1965, when President Johnson declared a federal War on Poverty [14.7%].
In 1966, the first year after Johnson declared war on poverty, the national poverty rate was 14.7 percent, according to Census Bureau figures. Over time, the poverty rate has fluctuated in a narrow range between 11 and 15 percent, only falling into the 11 percent range for a few years in the late 1970s.
***Since President Obama took office [in January 2009], federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, [increasing it by] more than $193 billion per year, the study says.
Yet poverty level remains the same.
Trillions of dollars spent and not a damn difference. A culture of dependence was created. A voting bloc. Cradle to grave. The argument is not to say we shouldnt help the poor. The issue is the metric by which we define, measure, help, and report on the poor.
The official poverty measure counts only monetary income. It considers antipoverty programs such as food stamps, housing assistance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid and school lunches, among others, in-kind benefits and hence not income. So, despite everything these programs do to relieve poverty, they arent counted as income when Washington measures the poverty rate.
My conclusion is that the poverty rate is NEVER going to change. It is not DESIGNED that way. It's another way how pols game the numbers
Relatively, the poor are poorer than the other 85%, but the question is how poor in real terms? So poor they cant afford cable or cell phones?
Not in America. The pols don't measure nor report after the fact, they measure/report before the fact to keep us giving, giving, giving, giving the largess that created a dependent voting bloc.
The end result is an increasing majority of our poor who can live a lower middle class life (everyone gets a ribbon) while the pols maintain a narrative that appeals to pity. Ad Misericordiam. And one that is bankrupting Western Nations.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Everybody should see this, nearly nobody will. So it goes.
There will always be poverty but part of our problem is the definition of modern poverty. Today I think i means not having the latest toy from Apple.
LBJ: pass The Great Society and the Democrats will have the ni**er vote locked up for 50 years. His was a conservative estimate.
It’s a sliding scale.
I grew up in 3rd world conditions compared to the impoverished of today “endure”.
2 and sometimes 3 channels of black and white TV was the height of luxury when I was a kid and I didn’t think of us as poor.
If you are close to my age, having a TV at all made you “rich.”
Succoring the poor is incumbent upon any Christian society. Trying to abolish poverty is a fool's errand, as Our Lord told us. And, succoring the poor out of tax revenues is harmful, as one of Christ's more notable followers in the fifth century observed:
Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich persons gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again.
Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold from the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change peoples hearts firstand then they will joyfully share their wealth.
- St. John Chrysostom on the poor from On Living Simply XLIII
I was born in 1964 and the cost of my delivery and a couple day hospital stay was a week and a half’s pay for my dad at a whopping $85 (he was a garbageman)
There is a theory about dealing with part of chronic poverty with what’s called a “technology step-back plan”.
It’s based on the idea that some of the people caught up in poverty just cannot handle information-age technology and society. In a manner of speaking they are befuddled by the speed of the world around them, and need a simpler, slower place. Their brains just cannot handle modern times in its complexity.
The idea is that they need a rural settlement. Oddly enough, this would involve a lot more physical work on their part. But for people in this psychological situation, this is acceptable. Importantly, once set up there, they need minimal support, so the idea is much more cost effective.
Instead of dealing mostly in money, they do a lot more trading with each other, and with those who bring in supplies they can’t make themselves.
It isn’t primitive, more like a 1930s and 1940s small town, with information in a carefully stocked library and a weekly newspaper.
Children are something of a problem, since they need a modern education, and the majority of them are likely capable and interested in living at a faster pace.
But for their parents, who right now lead miserable lives that cost society a fortune, this may be a way to lead a more normal life, living at a pace more suitable to their wiring.
Sounds about right. You told me about it once...Albion, right?
Farming requires a pretty good-sized skill set. I’m not sure banishing the Luddites to the countryside is a good idea, but it’s gotta work better than this gummint imposed Robin Hood system we have.
Farming nowadays can be more complicated and less user-friendly than working a computer, depending on the farm.
And, if you’re stupid with a computer, it doesn’t rip your arm off, trample you to death, stampede into the nearest highway, or drown you in manure :p
Don’t think of them as Luddites, as they are still in the normal range, but overwhelmed.
Alvin Toffler proposed something like what is happening today in 1970, which he called “future shock”, and today, a lot of people are borderline to being overwhelmed by technology in their lives. Often they cross over to ‘overloaded’ and have to back off for a while.
It’s pretty easy to sympathize with that. But the people I’m talking about just get overwhelmed much more easily, and are frustrated into inertia. Everything they want can only be obtained with knowledge that overwhelms them.
In a simpler situation they do okay, and can work and get results and profit from that work. It makes sense and helps them get their sense of self worth back.
This is what I’ve been saying forever.
The people high up running these groups never want whatever they’re fighting to really end. It’s their business.
There are groups like this on the left and right. Each employ naive true believers at the lower levels for plausible deniability. The leftist groups secretly make lots of money but because they think they are smarter and care more than everyone else they deserve it. The groups on the right that do this, mostly unscrupulous businesses, make lots of money but they think they’re doing a favor to the customers they’re screwing over, they deserve it, too.
Farming can be complicated, but it doesn’t have to be.
I imagine such a settlement taking a good decade to get settled in, evolving through subsistence farming to having some degree of abundance, enough to trade for “dry goods” and other supplies.
Not everyone would be a farmer, of course. Plenty of jobs involving lots of traditional work, such as tailoring, shoe making, food processing, storing and cooking, butchering, etc.
And there would be electricity and basic appliances. Again, not primitive, but not an IT culture.
The USA “poverty line” is 20x the world median income.
The biggest health problem of our poor is obesity.
Poverty is, in effect, illegal: between minimum wage and welfare, there is no legal excuse to live in real poverty - and to do so risks a host of legal violations.
Simple matter: one must create more value than one consumes, else one becomes destitute.
Those who create more wealth than they consume sell the surplus, and thus attract money.
Those who create less wealth than they consume buy the difference, and thus run out of money.
You can’t plug a leak by pouring more water into it.
That picture depicts real poverty.
The solution is a ticket to somewhere else.
On his Thursday broadcast, he made me fall off my chair when he responded to an email that said, plainly, that nowhere in the constitution is the federal government empowered to provide unlimited welfare (or any welfare for that matter.)
He conflated the 18th century word "welfare," (general well being) with the current synonym for "charity!"
The last time I saw that assertion was when a fruitloop Amish woman was touring the country making the same argument. She was quickly laughed off the national public stage.
Was there national required charity established in the late 1700s?
Was there a food stamp program?
Aid to dependent children as a national obligation to all citizens?
Free mail for the poor?
If it was a real part of the Constitutional enumerated powers why did it not exist for over 100 years afterwards?
Remember, the federal income tax did not sneak into the national consciousmess until 120 years later, and there was no mention whatsoever of mandatory national charity during Congressional debates prior to its adoption.
If an idiot with an Ivy League education can't grasp the obvious, what can we expect from the parasites who are 90% of Hussein's electorate?
Mind-boggling does not begin to describe it.
You know more about it than I, so I defer. I guess I can’t relate....’Cause here I am at 10PM banging on the laptop, which I’ve been doing in one form or another since 6AM.
I’m no luddite but I sure don’t mind being imprisoned here in the countryside. In fact I think the cities should have high walls to keep me out.
Nice try, but I'm not buying.
The urban poor are an urban creation which show signs of being able to handle technology just fine, as long as it suits them.
Don't export the problems of inner cities to the countryside where we'll have to bury them.
We have rural poor, too, often without the technology of their urban counterparts, partly because many won't go on welfare. That doesn't mean they are incapable, just not familiar with the technology--a technology which is less reliable in a rural setting and often more expensive in rural 'limited markets'.
I must note that in both cases, poverty is not so much a question of available resources so much as the disposition of those resources. You have to put a bottom in that bucket before you can fill it, and there are those who would starve in the midst of a garden ripe for harvest.
There will always be poverty but part of our problem is the definition of modern poverty.....My definition of poverty i seeing the people of the Phillipines, Zambia, Rhodesia (after we got thrown out), and Viet Nam. We have NO poverty in the US. Poor, as compared to the working, sensible, able people, yes. But no poverty.
We need poverty so we can either appreciate or be embarassed about how well we are doing (we wouldn’t appreciate the sun if it weren’t for the clouds). The poverty level now is akin to middle class in the ‘50s because the Left needs high poverty levels to pull of the class warfare thing.
Well, perhaps the best way to put it is to think of a visit to your rural grandparents, or going to summer camp for a week, just to go on vacation and “get out of town’.
A lot of people fantasize about this sort of thing, because they are overwhelmed with the pressure and routine of an IT society. And some people just can’t deal with it at all.
In perspective, it does make you ask why Obama and Washington have to be in the news every single day. Washington used to be far away and a lot quieter, but the egomaniacs in the place now think of themselves like Hollywood stars trying to steal the limelight in any way they can. So they keep forcing themselves on our attention.
Which is really annoying when they have nothing new to say, but act like wired cheerleaders to excite everyone over nothing of importance. And the media helps them to do this a lot, to fill up their 24 hour news cycle.
And, as you just pointed out, the Internet and computers are a time consuming monster.
So, with an emphasis on reasonably modest logistics, imagine living in a settlement away from all of that. There could be all sorts of diverse ways of doing so, but the emphasis is a more relaxed life, for those who just can’t adapt to fast paced everything.
Whatever the merits of the plan, it is built on the axiom of elitism: that some people are too stupid to run their own lives, whatever the situation, and they need otherwise uninvolved third parties to commandeer their lives nigh unto gunpoint to save them. This is at odds with the core American axiom of freedom & liberty.
Any links to proponents of this theory?
As Jesus pointed out, there will be no end to poverty, until He makes an end of it. He also pointed out that individuals have a duty to render alms to the least of us, as those who live in poverty are. But that is the Almighty’s commandment to individuals- not governments.
Poverty has a parallel in racism, as indicated by these words of wisdom:
“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well.” - Booker T. Washington
If the poverty pimps cure the condition, they are out of a job.
Even an IT culture has a need for people to push brooms, bag groceries, paint houses. Your proposed solution is unecessary.
I am a little curious about your basis for it, what kind of farm do you run? Or, how many farms and what types have you worked on?
This is kind of a “forest and trees” argument.
Similar rural settlements have been suggested in past for unemployable ex-convicts, older fourth world immigrants who do not grasp our technology at all, and those who are functionally retarded but able to do simpler tasks.
This just adds to that list people who are not retarded, but just cannot function in a more technological society.
The idea of farming and animal husbandry is solely that they can help to feed and partially clothe themselves. Anything beyond that is incidental, so it is not a great goal in and of itself.
The goal is that many of these people will lead better lives doing this than living in small, filthy, inner city projects apartments, doing nothing other than what they are told to do by government workers.
And at significantly lower costs in the long run.
You still didn’t answer my questions. That’s ok, I can tell what your answers would be.
Kindly do all rural folks a favor, stick to the concrete.
And you might stop doing the government favors by asking people biographical questions on the Internet.
Sorry, not yours. Not theirs, either.
Nothing personal. Literally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.