America Has The Richest Poor In The World

Exactly right.

There is a percent I admit (probably around 10%) that are there for economic reasons, and work to get themselves out of that situation. And most of them probably do work their way out of poverty.

But most are there because that is how they want to live. No responsibility, no cares, free food and shelter, and their money often goes to the mind altering substance of their choice.

Even in LA, you can work yourself out of homelessness within a few months. Especially if you get a job and live in the shelter. You can save most of your money, and move out of there if you so choose. But most do not even bother to try, let alone even bother to look for work.

 

i fell the same way

 

The studies have already been done, many times. Divide the nation into 5 groups from very rich, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, and poor. In 10 years time 80% from EVERY class will have CHANGED classes. Including some from the top to the bottom and some from the bottom to the top.

"The RICH" is not a static group. More than 80% of the rich today, MADE their wealth in their lifetime.

We have young internet billionaires today. Some of them WILL be penniless someday. And someone from any one of the other 4 groups will take their place, at least temporarily.

 

Thank you, That's all anyone has any right to, equal opportunity. And confirms exactly what studies found.

What was your point?

 

So the rich can relax and feel good about themselves, can they?

"The poor are doing well, so let's not worry about them".

In fact, you treat them too well. They can eat bread and cheese.

 

So what else are we supposed to do, provide wine with it as well?

At what point can a society say "We've done enough to help the poor."?

Because there are always going to be poor.

 

By subsidizing them so that they live a higher quality of life than someone who works 40 hours a week?

I guarantee the average unemployed urban poor mother with 2-3 kids lives a higher standard of living than a single urban poor male who works 40 hours a week at just above minimum wage. That is evil and that is wrong.

 

So is being filthy rich and getting richer while others starve, and you profit from them. Evil...AND wrong....for sure.

 

How does that work when there is any rate of unemployment above one percent. Are you claiming that everyone who tries can get a job in that case?

 

Not by solving for a natural rate of unemployment by merely subsidizing the least efficient to not provide labor input to the economy for the equivalent to a minimum wage. Anyone actually wanting to work could be freer to do so, whenever they can command a prevailing, market based wage.

 

So you are arguing against welfare, because welfare pays people not to work, which helps no one. It creates chronic unemployment and chronic underapplication of one's self, which hurts society.

 

If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for life...

The U.S. is the most "Giving" Nation on Earth. We don't need the Government to tell us to help people, we do it all on our own. Such decisions on where to give your charitable funds should be left to the individual and not mandadted by the Government.

 

When LBJ started the "War on Poverty" back in the 60's, we had less than 25 million people living "in poverty."
The "War on Poverty" has provided enormous amounts of money and support for people in poverty. Food, Clothing, Medical, Housing, MONEY AND EDUCATION!! All have been provided to the "disadvantaged."
Today we spend 57% of our SPENDING, not our budget, our SPENDING on the poor, the sick, and the old.
In FY2011 we spent $3,603.1 TRILLION. 57% of that is $2,053.8 TRILLION. leaving $1,549.3 TRILLION for ALL other government expenses.
Our DEFICIT for FY 2012 was $1,299.6 TRILLION.

So AFTER we spent $2,053.8 TRILLION supporting the poor, the sick, and the old. We had $249.7 BILLION left to pay all other govt expenses. When THAT ran out,,,,,,,,,,EARLY,,,,,,,,,,,We had to borrow ANOTHER $1,299.6 TRILLION.

So what you want,,,DEMAND,,, is extremely expensive. But is ir worth it to win the "War on Poverty?"

When the 'WAR' started we had 25 million in poverty. Now we have 50 million in poverty.

WHAT GOOD DID WE DO?

And when I mentioned EDUCATION above, not a cent of the DoEd expenses are in that $2.5 trillion support number.

And all of this is Federal Support ONLY, not a dime of State support is included in the support number either.

To give you an idea what ONE TRILLION is,,,,,,,,If you were given $1 million per day to spend, it would take you 2740 YEARS to spend just $ONE TRILLION.

 

From my perspective, relying on means tested welfare as a social safety net is not very cost effective; a simpler social safety net would work better and not cause the phenomena you describe.

 

That parable was more true in the Iron Age than it is in a modern Information Age where all a positive multiplier effect requires, is money being spent.

Why not solve for a lack of money management skills in a modern economy, by providing for recourse to an income whenever a person can claim to be unemployed?

 

It is still true... Think of fish as a resource. Give them the resource and you need to continue to give. Show them how to get the resource for themself and free yourself from the burden.

 

"America Has The Richest Poor In The World "

do republicans want America to have the poorest poor in the world?

 

Seems Conservatives (generally Republicans) are more giving than Liberals...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
=====================================

So it seems most Liberals are all for giving more of other people's money, just not their own...

 

How does that account for a person being able to work on their money management skills, merely by giving them money in our money based, mixed market, political economy?