On poverty

The last time that there was an increase in Social Security benefits that even pretended to match the increase in the REAL cost-of-living was in 2008, when "W" was still president.

 

My private disability policy saved me.

 

I'm glad to here that Moi
I for one would be happy to share my financial success more fairly with those who haven't had my luck.

 

In my view criminal justice is an appropriate role for government because it protects everyone. Poverty on the other is not an appropriate role for government because it fails to uphold the concept of equality under which the country was founded. Social programs all rob Peter to pay Paul and all of them fail to uphold equality so I don't believe they belong in federal government at all.

I think public education is positive for the society. If you want to make the quality of education the same for everyone, then I agree heartily. It goes against equality to provide better education for one group than it does to another.

Federal social programs all have little spit in their worth. Social programs belong in charity. Government is not a charity and gets into trouble whenever it acts like one. I think your idea is a good one but it belongs in charity not in government which should be practicing equality.

 

You think it's a matter of luck? Seriously?

Do you believe in fairies, too?

 

That's the only thing that will save the majority of working and middle class people, in the end.

Refuse private property at your deep peril .. unless you're very wealthy.

 

Land, you mean. If you had bought a house on a rented mobile home pad, you would be toast.

 

There is plenty of good, peer-reviewed science demonstrating the importance of luck in determining people's career success and financial well-being:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/

You just reject science because it disproves your false opinions.

 

No, justice would save them just fine if people like you were not so intransigently opposed to it. You merely hate justice, so you won't consider it as a possibility.

To describe not being strong enough to scramble from the treadmill up onto the escalator it powers as "refusing" private property is disgracefully disingenuous.

 

No, you're rejecting science - when you claim luck is an important factor in success.

Outside of inheritances, we make our own 'luck'.

 

Not when it's still possible to buy property on the lowest of incomes (even welfare).

 

The need is far too great for charity to deal with the entirety of the problem, noting that charity is mostly a hodge podge of ad hoc committees. No one is saying poverty can be cured, but social programs can help take the sting out of poverty.

We'll just have to disagree on that point.

 

Not true, I bought my mobile for $20k, it's worth $125k today, a new one would be $180k.

 

No they don't. They do the opposite.

Bandaids are not a cure.

 

Also, usually the measuring stick for poverty is relative, but the emotional plea is always absolute.

Someone with two cars, three TVs, easy access to food, and air conditioning in two rooms doesn't suddenly enter poverty because someone else now has a few extra zeroes on their bank balance.

But this is how they measure poverty. The vernacular meaning is completely disconnected from that measured.

How many people in the US died of acute starvation last year? Thirst? Exposure?

Homelessness is a nuanced issue which is demonstrably not solved by throwing money at it.

 

Indeed. At least you have the majority opinion. I see huge problems for the economic future of the nation caused by social spending. Most people do not.

 

Social programs are not needed if society does their job. For example, why does any society not treat all areas of their community equally? Why is money spent in some parts of town/county while other parts are ignored? Why can't anyone at any time walk any streets and feel safe? Why aren't all pubic schools identical in maintenance and technology and education? None of these, and others, are 'social programs' yet would go a long way towards improving many issues...

 

Well said. It seems to be a cultural issue. For example it is safe to walk anywhere in Japan safely. Yes Japan has a more aggressive judicial system than ours but, more importantly, the culture there is closer to live and let live. The Japanese treat each other better.

Our schools are the way they are because of corrupt politics. You are right that all public school students should get comparable facilities and education. I view equality as the bedrock of the American way. That bedrock has certainly softened in recent decades.

 

And demons, I've met a few.

 

Not meant to be a cure, and if you get scraped, band aids are a good idea.

I've known many in poverty in my life, and were thankful for the assistance they recieved.

You simply do not know what you are talking about.

 

Problems? So what? Life always presents problems, not matter what you do.


Now then, what was life like for the elderly before medicare?

https://www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/lbjmedicare1.html
Prior to Medicare, only a little over one-half of those aged 65 and over had some type of hospital insurance; few among the insured group had insurance covering any part of their surgical and out-of-hospital physicians' costs.

What was life like for seniors before Social Security?

https://www.gobankingrates.com/reti...hey Died Impoverished,life as best they could.

They Died Impoverished. The sad truth is that before Social Security income became available, 1 in 2 seniors were impoverished. Without investments, a pension or support from others, many had nowhere to turn and simply lived their remaining life as best they could.


So, the question is NOT 'what will be the problems incurred by the social program', the better approach is:

1. Will the social program provide relief, however small, make life more bearable for, and other wise help those who qualify, etc ?

2. What are the problems incurred in the administration of the program?


For Social Security and Medicare, the outcome of #1 justified #2.

 

This.

 

Plenty of people see it. We see the huge economic problems, and the huge social problems.

 

The key is their social responsibility. They understand that they're obliged to behave and contribute.

 

Making a scrape feel better does NOT cure the infection which sets in behind the bandaid. And the bandaid can in fact cause the individual to ignore the infection, or not notice it developing in the first place.

If you think treating symptoms is the same as treating the disease, then it's you who "do not know what you are talking about". Short term comfort is not always desirable .. and in the case of this particular disease it can actually be 'fatal', for the reasons mentioned above.