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.
by the way, what's the "Obama nonsense" you think I was saying?
he grew up poor, no?
he went to high school at a great place, on scholarship. This was an added benefit, but are public schools that bad? I went to one, and my kids go to one. they seem to be doing just fine.
he made it through college, and he made it through law school. Am I still correct?
Are we aware of him incurring a mountain of debt in college?
Yes, all because he is black. That’s racism at its finest.
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
Your question is based, obviously, on the premise that a gap is bad. It is not. Different people have different goals, abilities, skills, levels of determination etc., and we MUST let them seek their own level. We are not clones of each other, we are distinct humans with different skill sets, etc.
If you want to reduce poverty, you do the same thing that has been done before to create it. Simply, you redefine the definition of poverty, but since phenomenon are distributed on a bell curve (as is income), some will be on either side of the middle, some richer, some poorer. If you define the left hand side as poverty, you will always have poverty, but America's poor are rich compared to the rest of the world.
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
The United States was THE NATION to narrow the gap between the rich and poor through opportunity. This was improved through rise of the middle class from industrialism and Teddy Roosevelt's measures.
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.
