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.
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
Sure poverty is bad, but let's say you eliminate it. Then what? People will never be content when they see someone else with more, so they get jealous.
Give everyone food and shelter, they want a bigger roof and lobster instead. So why is a gap bad if the people who can afford it do so?
Or is it only an issue because you try to compare yourself with a rich person and not be mindful of what you have yourself?
First of all you are assuming that everyone wants to close the gap between rich and poor. Many people want to widen the gap between the rich and the poor, by enriching themselves at the expense of the poor. Donald Trump is a perfect example, and the billionaire class he represents.
Massively strengthen labor unions and get big money out of politics.
Its no coincidence that countries with strong labor unions have strong public safety nets as well. Labor unions democratize society like nothing else does. Most countries wouldnt have universal health care without strong unions IMO. It reduces the power of the corporate elite, workers no longer shackled to the job because of health care. In America during the 1960s, labor unions were at their strongest and the economy boomed. Of course, we got Medicare as well in the 1960s, partly as a result of strong unions.
The elite wants disorganized and desperate workers with just enough education to function in the economy they run. But not more than that. Thats a threat. Because democracy is a threat to any system of power.
Sure poverty is bad, but let's say you eliminate it. Then what? People will never be content when they see someone else with more, so they get jealous.
Give everyone food and shelter, they want a bigger roof and lobster instead. So why is a gap bad if the people who can afford it do so?
Or is it only an issue because you try to compare yourself with a rich person and not be mindful of what you have yourself?
Why?
I think you need to ask someone who has been born poor and disadvantaged and forget about "eliminating" the gap. That's not possible. The goal, for some anyway, is to mitigate the disadvantages for people born into poverty.
Also BTW, as one who has volunteered with the Food Bank for a few years, your assumption that someone who gets food and shelter then wants "a bigger roof and lobster instead," is telling of your rather off base (and off putting) perspective. Among the poor/hungry, mostly it's just a want of another chance to eat the next day too.
One long term that can help is to start enforcing anti trust again.
Forget about "eliminating it!"
Conservatives always insist on thinking in terms of these extremes, because it sounds like a slam dunk reason not to think progressively, but its a straw man argument, and a rather dumb one at that!
You won't eliminate poverty. You won't close the gap between rich and poor. Everyone is NOT going to be equal!
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.
