CNN feature on child poverty in Silicon Valley

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by Stephen1110

43% of people born in the bottom fifth quintile of the income distribution never make it out, and 70% never make it to the middle quintile. To suggest that these people should not have the right to raise a family because of their economic circumstance is unfair. I do think its fair for this country to support those with unfortunate financial circumstances. Do you object to poverty, and child poverty or object to spending on those in poverty? I think we all know the answer

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Ass...ingOnUppdf.pdf

Tax and transfer programs in the United States does the least to reduce poverty, relative to peer nations.


http://www.thenation.com/sites/defau...50_16%20AM.png


There is a strong relationship between social expenditure and poverty. The United States has the highest poverty rate and the lowest levels of social expenditures.


https://emd82.files.wordpress.com/20...7-56-47-pm.png


And of course, the relationship of social expenditure and child poverty rates.


http://www.bama.ua.edu/~jpetrovi/Wai...s/image007.jpg

Where in the Constitution is this "right to raise a family"? Is it right next to "right to take a vacation to Hawaii"? Because a lot of people can't afford that either.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Of course it only refers to cash aid, are you inferring that poor children should be denied medical care and food stamps?

Medical care and food stamps are still things other people have to produce, correct?

From what source do you derive this implied right to take the labor of other people?

I'm not interested in denying people the ability to provide their labor to other people, if they choose to do that.

However, I *am* interested in denying people the ability to steal from their fellow man, no matter how many "good reasons" they can come up with for wanting to do that. If we ever want to create a civilized society, we cannot base it on the premise that its okay to steal from each other.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

No, those are called "Farm subsidies". Food stamps is a cash payment to buy food. Food manufacturers do not produce surplus food. They produce based on the market signal of demand.

Ummmm, no. You do know where "food manufacturers" get the materials from to produce those "products", right? You need to educate yourself. A few highlights:

First Food Stamp Program (FSP) (May 16, 1939 – Spring 1943)
The idea for the first FSP has been credited to various people, most notably U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace and the program's first administrator, Milo Perkins. Of the program, Perkins said, "We got a picture of a gorge, with farm surpluses on one cliff and under-nourished city folks with outstretched hands on the other. We set out to find a practical way to build a bridge across that chasm." The program operated by permitting people on relief to buy orange stamps equal to their normal food expenditures; for every US$1 worth of orange stamps purchased, fifty cents' worth of blue stamps were received. Orange stamps could be used to buy any food; blue stamps could be used only to buy food determined by the Department to be surplus.

Over the course of nearly four years, the first FSP reached approximately 20 million people at one time or another in nearly half of the counties in the U.S. at a total cost of $262 million. At its peak, the program assisted 4 million people simultaneously. The first recipient was Mabel McFiggin of Rochester, New York; the first retailer to redeem the stamps was Joseph Mutolo; and the first retailer caught violating program rules was Nick Salzano in October 1939. The program ended when the conditions that brought the program into being (unmarketable food surpluses and widespread unemployment) ceased to exist.

Pilot Food Stamp Program (1961–1964)
The eighteen years between the end of the first FSP and the inception of the next were filled with studies, reports, and legislative proposals....

A Department spokesman indicated the emphasis would be on increasing the consumption of perishables.

Food Stamp Act of 1964

First food stamps
The Food Stamp Act of 1964 ..... President Lyndon B. Johnson hailed food stamps as "a realistic and responsible step toward the fuller and wiser use of an agricultural abundance."[7]

It goes on. I can bury you with history to read about the food stamp /SNAP programs serving the nation's farmers through the Department of Ag, if you'd like to read more.

As for your other lofty Libertarian gibberish of the evening in other posts, it's late. If I'm in good humor tomorrow I'll demolish most of what you wrote tonight. *yawning*. G'nighty fur now. Sleepy time.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

Medical care and food stamps are still things other people have to produce, correct?

From what source do you derive this implied right to take the labor of other people?

I'm not interested in denying people the ability to provide their labor to other people, if they choose to do that.

However, I *am* interested in denying people the ability to steal from their fellow man, no matter how many "good reasons" they can come up with for wanting to do that. If we ever want to create a civilized society, we cannot base it on the premise that its okay to steal from each other.

So you are saying that using tax dollars to feed the poor is theft? Then isn't it theft when tax money goes to pay a Police Officer's salary, or to build a bridge, or support a military? If we quit using tax money to pay for all those things I don't think we would be able to call ourselves a 'civilized society' for very long.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

Why would anyone invest or exert themselves to keep only 25% of their "excess income"?

Listen, societies don't become wealthier by redistribution. Even if you confiscated all the income of every billionaire and gave it to all the people of the world it wouldn't buy them airfare to the US so they could collect welfare. Redistribution literally cannot change the fate of the poor. There are simply way too many poor.

If you really wanted to help the poor you would focus on how to have fewer poor people. Giving them stuff that you stole from someone else is never going to change the reasons that they are poor.

1 - Is the "goal of society" to become "wealthy", in your estimation? I didn't know that.

2 - Redistribution certainly can change the fate of the poor. I'm not suggesting that methodology, but what an absurd generalization to make.

3 - The reasons the poor are poor are many. Among those reasons is oligarchical avarice and greed executed with total disregard for what makes a healthy society. But, in your Libertarian fantasy, society should not expect contribution from oligarchy, nor should we be allowed to demand a share in the bounty they accumulate at the expense of the minions they manipulate and often outright destroy? So, fine for the oligarchs to steal the health of the planet and its inhabitants - but bad for the people to demand just compensation for their labors and sacrifices?

Gotcha

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

Medical care and food stamps are still things other people have to produce, correct?

From what source do you derive this implied right to take the labor of other people?

I'm not interested in denying people the ability to provide their labor to other people, if they choose to do that.

However, I *am* interested in denying people the ability to steal from their fellow man, no matter how many "good reasons" they can come up with for wanting to do that. If we ever want to create a civilized society, we cannot base it on the premise that its okay to steal from each other.

If you have the slightest concern "to create a civilized society" you need to start being concerned with theft from the top down, which is where the greatest crime and damage is done to society - not from the bottom up.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

If you have the slightest concern "to create a civilized society" you need to start being concerned with theft from the top down, which is where the greatest crime and damage is done to society - not from the bottom up.

You are so correct about this! I think everyone who does not agree should see the documentary "Inside Job"

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

That graph doesn't demonstrate anything except that the US has the highest GDP in the world and that those other countries have low GDP.

If you look at social spending as a percentage of TOTAL spending, that would be more intelligent, and the graph would look a lot different. In that case it would still simply demonstrate that we have more poor people (and other people) than those other countries and that expenditure per capita varies as a function of population.
None of these things is anything but observation. There is no causal relationship between poverty and social spending. The poorest states in the US receive the highest level of transfer payments.

Actually you are wrong. The graph does demonstrate that the United States has a weaker safety net relative to its peer countries. Just looking at social expenditures as a percentage of total spending is misleading because countries differ in their economic performance (GDP). But, looking at the percentage of spending relative to GDP gives you a much a better picture: Countries who spend more relative to their GDP have lower poverty rates.

[fred9]

In this country you are penalized for failing no matter how hard they try; and ridiculed for asking for help and shunned for not becoming a sheep for make believe. Not everyone is born into money or hits the genetic jackpot and or is willing to set reason and sanity aside. In the U.S. Military no one is kicked out for failing, they are kicked out for not trying. Every one has a job, housing, education and health care. Our democracy could learn a few things from our socialist military.