How do you close the gap between rich and poor? (heroin, cocaine)

[bryan85]

Originally Posted by Neuling

I do not share that pessimistic view at all.
It all depends on the values people grow up with. It is a social problem. When the society surrounding a child is greedy, they are prone to think it is normal and become like that themselves.

Apart from Gods influence, mans nature does not and cannot change.

[Volobjectitarian]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

When people come off as if they are experts in a particular subject or field, I'm always curious to know what that background might be. That an ad hominem query far as you are concerned? No different than when I watch a program that addresses similar issues. They always explain what expertise or background the people participating in the program have, to justify why their opinion is worth considering.

Especially with people so long on opinion and so short on reference supporting their opinion, the question about source of knowledge and/or background becomes all the more interesting to me. Also because I'm not one to simply accept someone's opinion as truth simply because they say so...

Do you require a bibliography and footnotes? Do I need to post my CV as well?

Google "Georgia Race Strike of 1909" to see an example of racism in the genesis of minimum wage law. Then read the full history of the Davis-Bacon Act. Like what led both Davis and Bacon to craft that piece of legislation. You can also google "minimum wage and eugenics early 20th century" and find out all sorts of things about the early 20th Century eugenics movement championing minimum wages as a way to weed out undesirables from the labor market, thus doing society a favor.

Also, I notice you don't offer much in the way of bibliography or CV, yet now make this demand of me in particular? As I said, I am not sure why the ad hominem, given that virtually anything I type that even suggests "fact" is google-able. But if you need to do an ad hominem dismissal of arguments you cannot reute because the presenter has not offered sufficient CV cred, well cool. Should I just put you on /ignore so we can leave each other alone?

[Neuling]

Originally Posted by bryan85

Apart from Gods influence, mans nature does not and cannot change.

If that were the case, societies around the world would be the same, but many of them are very different from each other.
And even within the same society some people are almost the opposite of others, including regarding egoism vs altruism.

[Volobjectitarian]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Idea is to provide better access to quality education, for example, for more people who lack that sort of opportunity, face unnecessary barriers, along with health care too while we're at it. Child support...

But everyone already has access to education. And the Internet being almost 100% ubiquitous in American society puts the entire sum total of human knowledge on tap for anyone willing to tap it.

Health care is a set of goods and services that we have a half dozen federal and countless stat programs providing already for those who cannot afford it.

So all we have left are "unnecessary barriers" and I guess you need to define that better so that people inclined to ponder solutions could have a better target.

Originally Posted by LearnMe

There will always be other influential factors, of course, but just because all horses won't get to the water at the same time or drink as much doesn't mean the goal of getting all horses easy access to water is the wrong thing to do. Right?

You keep talking access, when that is basically equal across the nation. Everyone gets K-12 free somewhere.
Everyone can go to college. Etc etc.

What access is being denied such that you think it, and not individual choices/behaviors, is responsible for this gap?

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

What of the many people who work hard to circumvent government, to avoid taxes, get around the law, in more ways than we can count. Are they your heroes?

Do you really view all things government as a problem and nothing in terms of keeping people from doing whatever they like in their own interests at significant expense/harm to others? Manufacturers who would prefer to simply dump their toxic waste on their property out back is okay with you, rather than the government regulations and law enforcement intended to keep that sort of thing to a minimum?

You seem reluctant to address these sorts of specifics I've noticed...

Not reluctant at all. I’ve gotten into those issues on here for years, to the point where I just end up having the same conversations with the same people over and over...which is why I tried to stick to the topic.

I don’t view everything the government does as a problem, the same way I wouldn’t view it as a problem if the schoolyard bully happened to protect some kids from time to time. I just apply the same moral rules that people apply in their daily lives to the government - only use defensive force, and don’t take what belongs to others.

And no, I wouldn’t call those working around the government my heroes, but I support them doing it as long as they aren’t initiating force, stealing, or committing fraud.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by serger

Well, as you know, it does say "general welfare", but I'm NOT interested in arguing what was meant by that.

That's because you'll lose.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It actually says "general welfare of the United States," meaning specifically, the states.

That's not what it means.

The "United States" as it appears in the Constitution refers solely and exclusively to the federal government and no other entity.

That much is clear from the notes of the various committees drafting the Constitution.

It's also absurd, because the Constitution only applied to the federal government, and not the States.

The States weren't bound to the Constitution until the 14th Amendment, so it cannot possibly refer to the States.

When the States are referenced, they're referred to as "the several States."

The "general Welfare" clause applies only to the federal government in relation to the performance of its duties under the Constitution.

For example, it means the general welfare of ambassadors. Ensuring ambassadors are duly compensated, have the necessary support staff like assistants, secretaries and translators/interpreters, are properly fed and housed in the foreign States where they perform their duties, are protected from harm when necessary, and have their transportation and travel costs covered.

It does not mean give the American people food stamps or subsidize their housing or pay for their medical care.

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Not too long ago I spoke to a Flat Earther who explained to me why the Earth was flat based on what he considered "conclusion based on pure logic and reason." How do we really know if we're making as much sense as we think we are? How do we know when our logic is sound or flawed? Not like we listen to anyone else who disagrees with us. Right?

I’m very aware of that and constantly challenge myself. It may not come across over text, but I’m a very humble person and I don’t take any of my views for granted.

The other poster was making my views seem like an emotional response, or based on what I want to be true. My motivation is simply to find the correct answer using logic and reason (philosophy), even if the conclusion is uncomfortable. I’m actually happy when someone corrects me (assuming they’re debating honestly) because it brings me closer to the truth.

So, to change my mind, someone has to show how the people representing government are exempt from the societal rules that the rest of us live by. If you have ethical rules, they have to apply universally to every human being, and saying the state somehow has an exemption is the fallacy of special pleading, unless they’re some type of superior category of beings.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Again you have a very selective myopic view of everyone struggling with unemployment, low wages, lack of education, underemployment, job security, health coverage benefits and all the rest...

I'm in contact with those people on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Which makes further discussion with you more pointless than usual.

So says the one who has repeatedly dodged and refused to answer a simple question.

There are thousands of free opportunities available to the poor, yet they blatantly refuse to take advantage of those opportunities, why?

You cannot truthfully answer the question without destroying your own position.

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Let me ask you something anyway. Of all the people dealing with these issues at the lower end of the economic ladder, how many or what percent do you think are simply sitting at home playing video games?

Actually, a lot of them are standing on the street corner or in front of the local bar.

Originally Posted by LearnMe

If it works?

Yes, you're deathly afraid of being proven wrong.

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Please find the comment that supports your assertion my solution is simply "throwing money at the problem," and while you're at it, please back up your equally incorrect assertion that much in the way of these programs and efforts isn't working now, let alone never will work.

That's exactly what you and others like you want.

Those who drafted the Great Society legislation stated unequivocally that it would end poverty.

It has not, and never will, but it has succeeded in trapping people into the Poverty Culture.

You and others like you should play Jesus to the lepers in your head and spend money on The Poor®, instead of forcing others to spend their money.

At the very least, your position would no longer be hypocritical, and at the most, you'd see the abject failure of your position.

The Poor® blatantly refuse to take advantage of the thousands of available opportunities, because they don't wanna, and the don't wanna, because that's part and parcel of the Poverty Culture.

You cannot legislate thought, since people will continue to think and believe whatever they want, and money doesn't change people's attitudes.

One reason The Poor® are poor is because they're financially illiterate. They don't understand money or its value, have poor money management skills, poor planning and budgeting skills, and they lack the self-discipline to maintain a budget, instead choosing to satisfy every infantile urge that pops into their little brains.

By what logic and rationale would you give people incapable of managing money even more money they cannot manage?

Free tax-payer funded financial literacy classes are available in every city, yet The Poor® blatantly refuse to attend those free tax-payer funded financial literacy classes, just like they blatantly refuse to take advantage of the thousands of other free tax-payer funded opportunities.

Your government knows this to be true. If you do doubt, then go to any VA Domiciliary.

So-called "homeless veterans" are required to take financial literacy classes while they're at a VA Domiciliary, and more than that, they are assigned a payee to hold their money for them, and assist them in making good sound financial decisions.

The reason you still have poverty, and always will, is because you have failed to sufficiently and properly motivate The Poor® to take the actions necessary to get them out of poverty.

Around here Cincinnati State is $158/credit hour. $3,792 for one year. Everyone in poverty automatically qualifies for a combined Pell Grant/Ohio Educational Opportunity Grant of $6,095/year.

Do the math:

$6,095
$3,792 less
--------
$2,303 per year for books and anything else, and they never have to pay that money back.

So, what apologetic excuses are you going to make for them now?

Not only do The Poor® improve their position, they actually profit from it.

Again, why do the The Poor® blatantly refuse to get an education that will lift them out of poverty and which allows them to profit?

Because, they don't wanna.

If they don't wanna, then why should I give them more money?

It's real easy to motivate The Poor®. You just make welfare so much of an overburdening dreadful hassle that people would rather not be on welfare than be on welfare, and some would actually prefer to leave the US than be on welfare.

For everyone on welfare or in poverty, assign them a payee who will control 100% of their money.

The payee will dole out money just like a parent doles out an allowance to a child who is deserving of a reward for doing something good.

The payee will pay their rent, so The Poor® can't blow the money on alcohol, drugs, tobacco, lottery, gambling or tattoos. The payee will give them a voucher that can only be used at Krogers, or Wal-Mart or Meijers or Aldi or Piggly-Wiggly, so the money is spent on food, and not alcohol, drugs, tobacco, lottery, gambling or tattoos.

The payee will give The Poor® money for clothing, too, except the payee isn't going to authorize the expenditure of $150 for Nike shoes and the latest hip-hop fashions. It'll be a voucher to shop at Target or Wal-Mart or a second-hand store like Goodwill or Saint Vincent de Paul.

Look at the bright-side: if they're shopping at Goodwill or Saint Vincent de Paul, the money is going back into the community, instead of corporate hands.

The payee will put money into a savings account, too, and teach The Poor® what to do with that money, when the savings becomes quite large, like get Certificates of Deposit, and teach them how to roll over CDs to make money.

Just like AA and NA have sponsors, you can assign The Poor® a Life-Coach who will be in contact with them daily.

What did you do to get out of poverty today? Did you attend one of the free tax-payer funded financial literacy classes? One of the free tax-payer funded parenting classes? One of the free tax-payer funded reading classes to improve reading and comprehension skills? The free tax-payer funded aptitude testing to see what jobs are best-suited for you? The free tax-payer funded English, math or science classes? The free tax-payer funded SAT/ACT testing classes? The free tax-payer funded city, county, State or federal government job-training services?

They don't have to go to college, there's plenty of free vocational training and even when there isn't, Pell Grants and State educational grants make vocational training free.

If The Poor® act responsibly, then the payee can give them a debt card with $10 on it spend on their own.

Even so, many of The Poor® will do nothing, because they don't wanna.

But, it's all good.

If The Poor® can't buy alcohol or drugs, because the payee controls their money, then there will be fewer incidences of domestic violence and child abuse, and less crime associated with alcohol or drug abuse.

So, everybody wins.

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Might be we're getting to the heart of your beliefs about what makes for a better society anyway, and if my hunch is correct, this would explain our defeatist attitude about addressing poverty altogether...

Only the people in poverty can do the things needed to be done to end poverty.

You cannot live their lives for them, and neither can anyone else.

Originally Posted by LearnMe

And what of all the people who have paid back all they owed plus interest? Like my entire family!

It's not my fault they made bad choices.

You don't have to go to a 4-year university for 4 years to be graduated by a 4-year university.

You can go to a less expensive cheaper junior college, technical school or community college and complete your Associate Degree, then transfer to a 4-year university.

That will save a lot of money.

You don't even have to do that. You only need 30 hours to matriculate.

So, you can go to a cheaper school for 3 years, then transfer into the school you want, take 15 hours in the Fall Semester and 15 hours in the Spring Semester, get your 30 hours and be graduated by the school you want.

Smart people understand, stupid people don't.

[T-310]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Short answer is not to think there will ever be a day when we don't have poor people and/or rich people, but there is what can be done to help limit the disparities of opportunity between those born disadvantaged vs those born with advantage.

A quick peek at another thread about Warren's proposed free child care immediately caused me to think people will either be for or against depending on whether they believe this effort to limit the above referenced disparities is appropriate for any society to work toward. Needless to say, better access to affordable child care, health care, education, nutritious foods and a safe environment - for as many people as possible -- rich or poor is how we best better provide opportunity for those born disadvantaged.

Some complain about all this "free stuff," as if there is no cost to America that comes from poverty. Do the math with respect to the cost of drugs, crime, poor health and all the rest compared to providing better access to all that helps mitigate the cost of poverty in America, and only then can you come to a better conclusion about how our tax dollars are best spent. Then too the question of who further up the economic ladder should pay what rate of taxes to support these efforts along with all the rest our government is more than happy to spend money on.

Far as you are concerned, should we bother with what I note in bold above? Why or why not?

Answer tends to determine whether you understand where people like Warren, Sanders, Newsom and other more progressive type thinkers are coming from...

Gov. Newsom proposing to expand services for babies and toddlers

https://edsource.org/2019/gov-newsom...oddlers/606886

How do you close the gap? Get the deadbeats off of welfare and working.

[lifeexplorer]

Stop incentivizing poor people to have babies they can’t afford.