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.
Of course when the word poverty is used Right Wingers have to use words like theft and envy it is like talking to a 5 year old you can not have a serious conversation without them throwing out ridiculous claims.
How are you defining "truly homeless" and "through no fault of their own"?
Mentally ill, for one. We can no longer lock people up if they want to live outside, ill, no meds, etc. Even if they only 'want' that due to things being wrong with their mind. I know one that doesn't even need locking up. Just some kind of housing and food. He won't refuse to go inside anywhere like that man in 'The Soloist'. He wants inside really badly but he can't work. His illness precludes him from even getting disability. Because he doesn't think he is ill!
Everything. In this case, it's genetic engineering based on the falsehood that certain traits like "poverty" can be passed down to children. What are you, nuts?
I was going to look up some stats on how much the US spends on welfare programs each year. But it's pretty difficult to waddle through all the right wing nutcase websites claiming ridiculously large numbers.
Let's just agree that each year the US spends a lot of money on welfare. And there is no end in sight as poor people have the highest fertility rate among all groups of people.
So, let's not use the word theft. We'll call it an investment that we won't get to see the results for at least a generation.
In another thread, someone suggested the following solution to poverty. I can't remember who this person was, so if you think this was your idea please speak up.
Here's the solution. Basic income for life of about ~$2000/month to anyone with one condition: voluntarily submit oneself to sterilization. Within a generation or so, the problem of poverty will be solved.
This suggestion was written on here a few weeks ago. On the outside, it sounds horrid, doesn't it? But I cannot find anything logically wrong with this policy. Put aside political correctness for a moment. What exactly is wrong with this solution?
What's wrong? They need to give up the right to vote too.
I don't think its an immoral idea since it is completely voluntary. It just wouldn't eliminate poverty. American "poverty" isn't at all the same thing as international poverty. American poverty is relative to how other Americans are doing financially. The concept of American poverty is a useful, highly flexible tool for politicians to utilize to push for their preferred policy programs.
One could already make the argument that there is no true poverty in the US. No one is starving to death. All Americans can get basic clothing if they need it. Relatively few Americans are truly homeless through no fault of their own.
I guess my underlying point is that while the OP's idea would probably improve society, it wouldn't eliminate "poverty" because poverty would simply be defined in some new way.
I agree I do not think poverty will ever be totally erased there is just to many people with to many problems but that does not mean we should try to eliminate it as much as we can. I think a basic income would be a good way to do that it would give people security that if they are unemployed or lose their job they would not end up on the street. Would some people waste their money and still end up in the street yes but we should not refuse to do something because some people would not use it the right way.
While I agree with you that the nature or definition of poverty changes from time to time and country to country, the attitude of poverty remains the same.
I grew up in poverty. I'm not talking about American poverty. I'm talking about 3rd world type of poverty. I remember when I was little there were days when us kids were told to sleep all day because there wasn't anything to eat that day.
The fact of the matter is no matter how you define poverty or where you are, the attitude of poverty remains the same. It is the human psychological condition called learned helplessness that persists and gets passed down from generation to generation. An impoverished person in America may not be starving like an impoverished person in Africa, but they both feel completely helpless and from their point of view no matter what they do their situation will never change.
My siblings and I were very fortunate because our poverty was not due to generational poverty. It was because of politics and my parents were intellectuals before the communists took over and started their war against educated people.
We are told that it is politically incorrect for us to try to stop poor people from breeding. And it is an undisputable fact that impoverished people have the highest birthrate among all groups of people. What's worse, teenage pregnancies are rampant in these poor communities.
The idea I put down in the OP isn't mine. It was written on here in another thread a couple weeks ago. I cannot find anything logically wrong with it.
My father grew up in poverty in Milwaukee with holes in the bottom of his shoes, no winter coats, and many days going hungry. You speak out of pure ignorance. Oprah Winfrey herself grew up with no running water and no electricity in what was not uncommon in the South back then.
Albeit, my father's situation was to do with his gambling addicted, alcoholic, womanizing father never or rarely bringing his paycheck home. And my grandfather was getting a middle-class income from a Milwaukee beer factory.
You could always expend energy and time studying economics and financing and obtaining a doctoral degree in those subjects. If you truly wanted to solve poverty (albeit, relative poverty will always exist). But then that would take hard work. And we a know most of us hate hard work. Easier to project our ignorance and sloth on to a vulnerable class held in low esteem.
Everything. In this case, it's genetic engineering based on the falsehood that certain traits like "poverty" can be passed down to children. What are you, nuts?
Well, if I keep having to answer these kneejerk reactions, I may actually go nuts
I'm not suggesting poverty is a genetic trait that gets passed from generation to generation. I've explained in at least 3 other posts in this thread already that the psychological condition of poverty, mainly learned helplessness, gets passed from generation to generation. This is why we have generational poverty. Also why 5 decades of throwing hundreds and hudreds of billions of dollars at the problem of poverty has done nothing but create more and more people dependent on the system.
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.
