Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, but the attitude of poverty gets passed from generation to generation. Impoverished people also have a much higher fertility rate than everybody else.
This is as true as it gets. Nobody wants to hear this truth though. Thanks for speaking up about it.
You can not end poverty with a citizenry that is unwilling to work because they will not appreciate the value of money. [Didn't you read the post about "money madness"?]
Also because of their lack of financial understanding they will not know how to handle it. In other words, they'll still be broke.
And when will it ever be enough? Think about it. People think "when I get a raise" I'll be ok and after the raise, they realize it's not enough, most people do this all their lives.
People who get money at the expense of someone else never appreciate that other people worked hard to earn the money they received and they will keep demanding more money. They will also continue to refuse to give anything of value in return.
You especially can not end poverty with a citizenry that thinks they are owed.
Perhaps you misunderstood my earlier post. MONEY madness is behind our economic malaise. I repeat - MADNESS is rampant, not the "lack of understanding of the value of money."
Money (circulating legal tender) has no intrinsic value - at least according to American law.
". . .Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves..."
NO VALUE = WORTHLESS
There is no correlation between the sum and value of circulating notes with the marketplace of goods and services.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm
Q: How much U.S. currency is in circulation?
A: There was approximately $1.45 trillion in circulation as of April 6, 2016, of which $1.4 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.
($4,375 per capita )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financ..._United_States
● ". . . The financial position of the United States includes assets of at least $269.6 trillion and debts of $145.8 trillion to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion."
How does one get 145.8 trillion into debt when there are only 1.4 trillion dollar bills circulating? How does one borrow 100 times more than exists?
[Do not look behind the curtain, little girl, we are the great and powerful OZ!]
By the way, Congress has no power to CREATE money, nor give that power to anyone else.
Congress has the power to COIN money (stamp bullion) or borrow money. If Congress could create money, why would it need to borrow it?
Quote:
. . . they will not appreciate the value of money.
Most Americans wouldn't know lawful money if it bit them on their [bleep].
There hasn't been lawful money in circulation since 1933.
Didn't you hear about the STATE OF EMERGENCY declared in 1933?
. . . .
Senate Report 93-549 https://archive.org/stream/senate-re...3-549_djvu.txt
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...
Constitutional U.S.A. (1787 - 1933) R.I.P.
Feel free to inquire about this with your public servants.
On the news, it was reported that America’s wealth grew by 3 trillion to 70 trillion “dollar bills.” I hesitate to use the term “dollars” because that would be misleading.
We have been lied to and indoctrinated to believe in something that is not really there, and to base our judgments upon that lie.
To illustrate, let us accept that American families are now “worth” 70 trillion “dollar bills.” Fine, let us all try to sell half of that wealth to the other - a mere 35 trillion “dollar bills.”
Problem #1 : there can be no more than 19 trillion “dollar bills” in circulation, since they are debt, and thus part of the national debt.
Problem #2 : Based on the gold allegedly stored at Fort Knox, there’s only 2.9 billion “dollars” worth of gold bullion, available to be coined into lawful money.
Problem #3 : there are only 1.4 trillion “dollar bills” currently in circulation.
Can you see the problem yet?
We’re taught to use a unit of measure, a “dollar bill” that is a variable, not a constant, and is finite, and relatively scarce in relation to the sum total of value in the marketplace.
- - - You can’t count that which is not there - - -
Imagine a shepherd, and he wants to count his sheep’s “value.” Let’s say each sheep is worth 1 shekel. So the shepherd counts the sheep in relation to shekels. One sheep, one shekel, and so on. But there are only 200 shekels in circulation. Once the shepherd’s flock count hits 201, does he stop counting, or can he just say, “This one makes my worth 201 shekels !” ?
Likewise, how can American wealth be “worth” 70 trillions of dollar bills that (a) do not exist without going into debt 70 trillion dollars, and (b) dollar bills are a minus value?
Based on the gold in Fort Knox, the trade value of all American wealth cannot be higher than 2.9 billion dollars - if you embrace money madness. That’s the hard limit of measurement.
Ascribing a “value,” in money tokens (scarce) to the whole set of wealth, as if the money tokens “magically” appear to match that wealth, is beyond reason. Either you devalue the wealth to match the money token (“Supply versus demand”) or you cannot trade that “value.”
It is MADNESS - and millions accept it as part of their daily lives. Those who are wise to the money madness, keep millions and billions in indentured servitude.
= = = =
In short, those who do nothing constructive enjoy a rich lifestyle via vast riches taken from those who 'need money.'
And it is the modern money system that creates poverty, unmet need, unemployment, and economic collapse, by design.
This is the most moronic idea I ever heard, I don't care who's idea it is.
A better idea is A JOB. If they work they won't have so much time on their hands and when they do have time they'll be tired.
Haha, good luck convincing the poor that work is better than welfare. I gave this up a number of years back when I realized the learned helplessness they pass on from generation to generation is much stronger and more prevalent than anything we can throw at it. The only way to stop learned helplessness from getting passed on is to stop the production of more hosts.
The idea has some very bizarre underpinnings - particularly the assumption that anyone born into poverty will remain poor. Are you aware of what a totally un-American idea that is?
I tried, in my original reply, to avoid bringing up any reservations about this idea on philosophical grounds, in an attempt to respect your request for "logical" objections. I still don't really want to get into that aspect of it, but I have to say that the way you talk about the poor troubles me.
I won't accuse you of lacking compassion, as I cannot possibly know what is in your heart, but the way you talk about the poor makes it seem as if you consider them almost another species: incapable of change, hopeless, and perhaps even less fully human than yourself. Again, I refer to how your words sound to me. Whether or not this is your belief, I cannot say. I can only say to speak in terms of us vs. "them" makes me very uncomfortable, as it always does in conversations about groups of people.
I agree that what we have done so far is not working in enough cases, and needs to be changed, but I'm not sure that the way to get rid of the problem is by getting rid of the people. Your links show that 70% of children born into poverty remain poor. That means that 30% do not. Why not look closely at what makes the difference, and try to focus on that?
The 30% is the exception, not the norm.
Look, do you know why I think the plan I have suggested will work? Because people are lazy. I don't just mean poor people. I mean everybody.
People are lazy. Look at how poverty has been dealt with the last 50 years. Programs on top of programs just throwing money at the poor. And when they don't improve after a generation, more money is thrown at them. Why? Because there is no political will to actually look for a viable solution. Throwing money at the problem is the quickest way to tell the poor to STHU.
My proposal is instead of just throwing money at the poor to encourage them to breed out the next generation of learned helplessness people, we turn it around and throw money at them to encourage them to stop continuing the cycle of generational poverty.
Quote:
Last of all, and this is almost an afterthought: you have, I assume, proposed this plan as an alternative to welfare in its current form. What, then, of the working class, people who do not receive welfare, yet still fall under your definition of "the poor"? Should they also be encouraged to refrain from having children? If so, why? Assuming everyone had the ability and the desire to become highly educated and work in one of the professions, there would still be the issue of "menial work" needing to be done. Do we reward those who do it, making all of our lives easier in the process, by telling them they are not worthy of rearing a family?
When we run into shortage of people willing to do menial work, the pay for such menial work will naturally increase. Supply and demand.
Quote:
Enough of my concerns about the plan itself. For anything to work, it must first be accepted by those footing the bill. I think you may find this a tough nut to crack, as you may have surmised from the replies here. In addition to those who simply don't want to spend the money, you will find others who object on moral grounds, particularly among deeply religious communities. There are people out there who don't even want their tax money to be used for birth control (even condoms, which serve the dual purpose of preventing pregnancy and stemming the tide of STDs). Do you really think these folks will take kindly to paying for sterilization and lifelong income for those who accept it? Others will object because they believe the poor are being targeted for extermination, and may even bring up the term "genocide." If proponents of this scheme begin targeting heavily minority communities, and I am sure that some would, they may even have a point.
Of course it is tough to get anyone to accept this plan. It is much easier to continue throwing money at the poor and encourage them to breed out more generations of impoverished people who feel helpless about their situation.
The left wants to throw more money at the problem and the right wants to cut them off cold turkey. The same failed policies continue to be enacted and nothing gets resolved in the end. Oh yeah, if anyone dares to propose anything that doesn't fit in the left or the right, accuse them of seeing the poor as another species.
The idea has some very bizarre underpinnings - particularly the assumption that anyone born into poverty will remain poor. Are you aware of what a totally un-American idea that is?
Hi there, I challenge you to find where I said anyone born into poverty will remain poor.
Added by edit.
I should be a little more clear. I was born into poverty. So, obviously I do not think anyone born into poverty will remain poor.
But it is an undeniable fact that people who are born into poverty have a 70% chance of staying in poverty. It is also an undeniable fact that generational poverty is a real problem. No, it is not genetic. But the psychological and mental condition of learned helplessness does get passed on from one generation to the next. Just like how my dad plays the piano and so he passed his piano playing skills onto all of us, people who are trapped in perpetual poverty because of learned helplessness tend to pass this trait down to their next generation. The difference is learned helplessness is not a desirable trait to be passed down. Anyone here want to disagree with my last sentence?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
