On poverty

1) The problem is that the 'social program' is not used solely for those in genuine need (those whose poverty is a result of circumstances outside their control, and who have no other options ... like relatives). In fact those in genuine need probably make up only a small percentage of those in receipt of assistance. That's a HUGE problem - not only for the genuine, but for those who are abusing the system.

2) Lack of control of who receives assistance. See 1) above.

 

Actually there are no good answers to the questions i asked. It's always about funding but why does funding only go in certain directions? City and County so-called leaders are failures! They all talk but few back up the talk with action. In all cases...society and it's citizenry suffer...

 

No one can cure poverty. Poverty, like crime, will always exist.

The best that can be done is reduce it and or, at the very minimum, provide some relief.

I repeat, as evidenced by your assumption that poverty programs are supposed to 'cure' poverty, you do not know what you are talking about.

Poverty in America has been reduced.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/pover...grams-cut-poverty-nearly-in-half-over-last-50

 

Uh, the actual HUGE problem is that you do not think your thought processes through.

You wrote:

"In fact those in genuine need probably....."

The above statement by you has a glaring inconsistency, which is that 'in fact' conflicts with 'probably'.

If it is 'probably', then it cannot be a fact. Which is it?

I'm going with 'probably', which is in keeping with the fogginess of your comment:

So, in answer to your hypothetical musings, I have this:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/pover...grams-cut-poverty-nearly-in-half-over-last-50

 

That's just false. Buildings depreciate, land appreciates. If the mobile home you bought for $20K is worth $125K today, then it is not on a rented pad, it is on land you own, and it is the land that has increased in value.

 

"Possible"? You again claim, falsely, that if there is anyone who can do it, then everyone can do it.

 

I gave you a reference, which cited peer-reviewed sources. You haven't provided anything but your unsupported opinion.

Nonsense. You're merely taking a page out of the religious con men's book: "You just didn't pray hard enough."

 

Are you proposing (or presuming) that one possesses the "right" to use every square foot of land on the planet simply on the basis of having been born? That's ridiculous. In such a system, how do we determine where you are supposed to lay your head at night, store your things, enjoy some privacy to copulate and make babies, eat, and all the other things one does in the things we call "homes" or "houses"? Without being able to differentiate that house 12 on block 12 is yours and house 13 on block 12 is mine, then we'll find ourselves with the "right" to just traipse through each others domiciles, seemingly just be deciding we want to do so.

You could never have a fenced in yard with a pool, because the very act of fencing it in violates the "right" of others to use it, and for that matter, doesn't the very act of putting up one of those homes in the first place do the same?

Now do you understand why what you are proposing (or presuming) is so objectively absurd? Without the ability to buy, sell, and own property, how can one make even a single improvement anywhere without violating the "rights" of others to decide to sleep there because it's, what, collectively owned by all?? Even if you want to argue that obtaining territory (land) by conquest is immoral, which today it mostly is, that is not how things worked in days gone by, and regardless of how we got here, here we are. I own my property because I paid the previous owner for his/her rights to it, and they paid the owner before them, who paid the owner before them, and so on, until ultimately (in most cases) you get back to the point that someone purchased the property (either from another owner or in some cases in the distant past, directly from the government who claimed ownership by conquest), who built the existing house in the first place. You cannot come along after the fact and make some esoteric claim based merely on fantasy that amounts in, as another poster so eloquently put, taking away your property and then renting it back to you. They've actually already done that in rent we pay known as "property taxes", but that is nothing compared to how you think things should be.

But, I'm very happy to inform you that your wish will never come true. Not for real property, not for intellectual property, not for property of any kind. The only thing happening here by even engaging in this conversation is mental masturbation.

You still cannot set foot on my lawn without my permission. Sorry, not sorry. And it's still very much a crime to steal intellectual property. Sorry, not sorry.

 

It can't possibly catch up. Might as well try to fill a bucket whose bottom is air.

 

Providing 'relief' at the cost of addressing the root cause, produces more poverty. Relief (relief as in temporary removal of burden) is only beneficial in the highly motivated individual, because it won't erode their motivation down to apathy. Provide permanent 'relief' (which isn't relief at all, given it's permanent) to the unmotivated and you will have deliberately created exponentially more poverty.

 

Our pal wants you to pay rent for life, for the use of your own home.

Georgists are really just medievalists. Essentially they want "the king" (ie Govt) to own all the land, and we the peasants get to rent if from him. It's the same deal as State Socialism ... everyone becomes a life renter, paying "the king" to do anything at all. They want us to forfeit self-determination, and spend our lives in service to the machine via constant consumption.

 

You have no clue about mobile home values in north east county san diego.

No, mobile homes on owned land are all over $250k in north east county san diego.

On rented land, in the $125 - $145 k range.

In 2010, the market was really soft. I got mine for $20k (though she was asking $25k ). And yes, it's worth at least 5 times that today. I was very lucky getting in when I did. My rent is only $710 per month for 1140 sq ft. Prices are high in my area because of rent control, over 55, makes it very desirable. Lot's of folks who are retiring, are cashing out of their homes they raised their kids in, leaving them with lots of cash, and they are downsizing to mobiles because they are several times less expensive than a regular house, which go for $800k in San Diego. This fact is causing mobiles to go up rapidly. I had to double my insurance policy because prices are going up so fast due to demand, particularly now that the weather here is the best in the nation.

Depreciation is a tax thing, not a market value thing. Apparently you didn't get the memo.

The facts I gave you are verifiable. Do some leg work.

 

No it doesn't.

The link I gave your proves it helps a lot.

You're just talking theoretical nonsense.

 

I thought Dave Chappelle made an astute observation, which I'll paraphrase. "If the U.S. could solve a Black poor man's problems the U.S. wouldn't have any problems.

We've been taking a top DOWN approach for fourty years. What that did is ship good paying jobs with benefits overseas and throw million's of Americans into poverty, while making a very few fabulously wealthy.

Obviously that's not working. (And was a big reason there were so many of our countrymen willing to risk insurrection for a con-man on January 6th.) Isn't about time we try something different like working from the BOTTOM up?

 

It is never about funding. One can engage in equality given any level of funding. I would say that government in general is a failure in the U.S. and yes we all suffer from it. Decisions about governing should never be made for political reasons. Yet nearly all of them are. The voters allow and they get what they deserve.

 

Yes indeed. It is a culture that feels very unusual to westerners. It certainly felt that way to me during my visits to Japan.

 

However, therapeutics cannot fix a viral infection. Only the immune system can do that.

 

Bad examples. Medicare and social security aren't like other social programs. They are covered by a specific tax. If the program was managed competently it would never have cost government a cent. I'm not against social programs. I am against federal government engaging in them. This argument just a good man arguing with a practical man.

 

Vote for Bernie Sanders, that's the approach he is promoting.

 

No, because medicare is now part of the ACA, and as such, is pretty much managed by states unless a state opts out of the ACA which many red states do.

Social Security needs to be consistent across states, a good reason for it to be run at the federal level.

 

No, medicare is not managed as part of the ACA. You may be thinking of Medicaid which is managed by the same agency as Medicare. Medicaid is a pure social spending entitlement. It is not covered by a specific tax. Social security should be managed competently wherever that happens. It certainly hasn't happened in federal government. Medicare also should be consistent across states and, except for the supplemental insurance policies from the private sector, it is.

 

Where do you get the idea that Medicare is part of the ACA and managed by the States?

 

Well put. And yes, it MUST come from us. From the ground up.

 

And yet the underclass keeps expanding, homelessness keeps increasing, and more kids are coming out of school dumber than they went in.

I have no idea what your (or your link's) criteria is for 'helps a lot', but it evidently isn't SOLVING the social dissolution which breeds proverty.

 

He is? He's asking The People to fight for themselves, instead of waiting for Govt to fix things for them?