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.
If they know no better then that IS their life.
It's called generational welfare.
It's not that they desire it; they were born into it, grew up in it and many are content to live the same way when they become adults.
I think they desire it. There is an obvious option for them - get off their rear ends and get jobs. They're not exactly being forced to have babies they can't afford, there are certainly plenty of contraceptive options out there.
It's just too easy and they live too comfortably on it. Many people immigrate to the USA and get on government programs, they sure beat working hard for a living back home.
Are government programs effective in getting people out of poverty? If you think "yes" can you give some examples. If you think "no" why do you think we keep pouring money into programs that don't work?
Take a look at your average 1st nation reservation for the answer to that question.
Are government programs effective in getting people out of poverty? If you think "yes" can you give some examples. If you think "no" why do you think we keep pouring money into programs that don't work?
It is the individual that is effective in getting himself out of poverty. The government only aids in the act of keeping him there. They (the gov) offer nothing to a person as a plan for outage. So...it's up to the person in what they want to achieve out of their life.
I would argue that government programs are ineffective on aggregate of getting out of poverty, because with a few exceptions (Pell grants) the only purpose of government welfare programs is to provide a minimum level of economic support. Programs actually designed to provide real opportunity for economic advancement are not actively pursued and when they are, they are rarely adequately funded. If liberals and conservatives were honestly interested in providing real opportunity then we would have to become equally serious about providing real vocational and technological training at the high school level. We would need to revisit the entire concept that a college degree per se is the be all end all for producing a vocationally and technologically advanced workforce (I once ran across a paper some years ago that showed that nearly 60% of the engineers and technicians involved in the early days of the space program did not hold a bachelors degree) and certainly is not required for many occupations that now require one.
As an example, a documentary that I watched some years back compared and contrasted the vocational system in Germany with that of the U.S. According the documentary, seniors in high school were being employed as new account executives in local bank branches and many would go on to become local bank managers. Two young men in an automotive program were hired during high school as apprentices with BMW, part of the class credits came from being trained at BMW on their newest manufacturing processes. Compare that to the local American high school where kids are taught on cars that are so dated that their is no way that they could graduate today, and become certified mechanics upon graduation.
I would argue that government programs are ineffective on aggregate of getting out of poverty, because with a few exceptions (Pell grants) the only purpose of government welfare programs is to provide a minimum level of economic support. Programs actually designed to provide real opportunity for economic advancement are not actively pursued and when they are, they are rarely adequately funded. If liberals and conservatives were honestly interested in providing real opportunity then we would have to become equally serious about providing real vocational and technological training at the high school level. We would need to revisit the entire concept that a college degree per se is the be all end all for producing a vocationally and technologically advanced workforce (I once ran across a paper some years ago that showed that nearly 60% of the engineers and technicians involved in the early days of the space program did not hold a bachelors degree) and certainly is not required for many occupations that now require one.
As an example, a documentary that I watched some years back compared and contrasted the vocational system in Germany with that of the U.S. According the documentary, seniors in high school were being employed as new account executives in local bank branches and many would go on to become local bank managers. Two young men in an automotive program were hired during high school as apprentices with BMW, part of the class credits came from being trained at BMW on their newest manufacturing processes. Compare that to the local American high school where kids are taught on cars that are so dated that their is no way that they could graduate today, and become certified mechanics upon graduation.
Spot on...one area (education) that could use a major revamp and recognize that the holy grail is not a college degree.
Increased funding for pell grants IS a valuable government program that could use more $$$$.
A good tradeskill worker is worth his weight in gold and has an opportunity to take it even further with business ownership.
I think they desire it. There is an obvious option for them - get off their rear ends and get jobs.
Yeah, folks can't wait to live in rundown neighborhoods, having to stand in line to get approval from government apparatchiks for everything from food stamps to medical care. It is such a wonderful life.
Quote:
It's just too easy and they live too comfortably on it.
I would argue that government programs are ineffective on aggregate of getting out of poverty, because with a few exceptions (Pell grants) the only purpose of government welfare programs is to provide a minimum level of economic support. Programs actually designed to provide real opportunity for economic advancement are not actively pursued and when they are, they are rarely adequately funded. If liberals and conservatives were honestly interested in providing real opportunity then we would have to become equally serious about providing real vocational and technological training at the high school level. We would need to revisit the entire concept that a college degree per se is the be all end all for producing a vocationally and technologically advanced workforce (I once ran across a paper some years ago that showed that nearly 60% of the engineers and technicians involved in the early days of the space program did not hold a bachelors degree) and certainly is not required for many occupations that now require one.
As an example, a documentary that I watched some years back compared and contrasted the vocational system in Germany with that of the U.S. According the documentary, seniors in high school were being employed as new account executives in local bank branches and many would go on to become local bank managers. Two young men in an automotive program were hired during high school as apprentices with BMW, part of the class credits came from being trained at BMW on their newest manufacturing processes. Compare that to the local American high school where kids are taught on cars that are so dated that their is no way that they could graduate today, and become certified mechanics upon graduation.
My oldest son has taught me photoshop 6. His knowledge of the program came from the last two years of his high school. However, I believe he took the class as an elective.
Electives are there for the students, yet the student must make the choice on what to take that will get him/her where he/she wants to be when he/she 'grows up and becomes an adult'.
I took Journalism the last year of my public education, however, I did not pursue that when I became an adult. (something I would do differently if a time machine was available)
Are government programs effective in getting people out of poverty? If you think "yes" can you give some examples. If you think "no" why do you think we keep pouring money into programs that don't work?
No they are not, the biggest force that has raised Americans out of poverty is education and unions.
Last edited by Savoir Faire; 04-09-2011 at 12:14 PM..
My oldest son has taught me photoshop 6. His knowledge of the program came from the last two years of his high school. However, I believe he took the class as an elective.
Well that's all fine and dandy, but leaning Photoshop™ without extensive training in the entire Adobe Creative Suite of software and an intensive and structured program in photography, graphic arts, webdesign, and pre-press, and other occupations that are based around the software... I would consider that as money unwisely spent by the educational system.
The problem is we will never see everyone out of poverty, some people just can't or won't do enough to "succeed". The goal needs to be to make basic living as inexpensive as possible, so those on the bottom can have a basic life without all of the problems they have today.
This will not happen with a government program but with the removal of debt based currency and the creation of government controlled debt free currency.
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.
