Mission Accomplished: The War on Poverty is Over

[panamaican]

I think a problem is that once you start doing that you inch closer to universal basic income. And universal basic income is way too expensive.

It boils down to how you structure the gradual removal from the system. Done properly, you end up with people fewer people not working, fewer people just getting benefits and more people in a hybrid system where they're getting a basic standard of living that is partially self-funded. The advantage for them is that as their work situation fluctuates, their benefits fluctuate accordingly.

My opinion, as always, is largely driven by the premise that in a capitalist society you're always going to have very poor people and that the lowest level of the job market will never pay enough to sustain an individual. So, you have to accept that moving people straight into the job market is never going to solve your problem.

 

[panamaican]

IMO it would make more sense to reduce benefits for those who aren't working.

I think your opinion doesn't get deep enough into the situation.

What do you with those people who can't find work?

 

[Headkicktoleg]

I think your opinion doesn't get deep enough into the situation.

What do you with those people who can't find work?

Why do I have to do anything with them? We will never be able to give everyone a comfortable happy lifestyle without their participation.

 

[panamaican]

Why do I have to do anything with them? We will never be able to give everyone a comfortable happy lifestyle without their participation.

Let me rephrase that then. Are you fine with them becoming starving and homeless?

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Let me rephrase that then. Are you fine with them becoming starving and homeless?

If they are able bodied and fit for work, yes. There are also private organizations that help take care of people as well. Not everything is the government responsibility

 

[panamaican]

If they are able bodied and fit for work, yes. There are also private organizations that help take care of people as well. Not everything is the government responsibility

I'm talking about the group of people who are looking for work but not able to find it.

Also do you think it's the government's responsibility to remove homeless people from the streets?

 

[Headkicktoleg]

I'm talking about the group of people who are looking for work but not able to find it.

Also do you think it's the government's responsibility to remove homeless people from the streets?

We have unemployment insurance for that.

 

[Black Helicopters]

The "war on poverty" began on January 8th 1964.

We've been trying the same policy for 54 years, and poverty has only gotten worse since the beginning of the "war on poverty".

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

It's time to end this half a century old failed program. It ended up creating a cycle of dependency for the people it was intended to help.

Minus the second half of your posts which just feel like cliche lines, you're right. It's amazing how liberals use the "we've had a war on drugs for 30-40 years and it doesn't work, let's end it" but don't see the same for the War on Poverty

If anything, at least take a different approach because it's not working as intended

 

[2arctanx]

IMO it would make more sense to reduce benefits for those who aren't working.

but they can't get jobs, thats the reason they are poor...

 

[spamking]

The practical solution is to remove the penalty for working, not to make working a requirement.

Exactly. When someone can "survive" on the benefits without actually improving their position financially why would they want to get a job that will ultimately cost them more in taxes, etc. and lose benefits?

I'm perfectly fine with folks who work eventually getting bumped from receiving benefits, but to cut them abruptly or immediately after they get a job that puts them barely above the poverty line is ridiculous.

 

[tonni]

The practical solution is to remove the penalty for working, not to make working a requirement.

Demanding that those on benefits work just increases the percentage of poor people who won't be able to find a job and won't be able to qualify for benefits thus entering into real poverty. Although allowing benefit recipients to meet the work requirement with volunteering would be a fair workaround.

Reducing the penalty for working would allow people to add employment without fear of losing their benefits. Thus as their income rises, they will gradually phase out of the programs.

It's always been the right solution but it's not punitive enough to capture the attention of people who think that the poor choose poverty in order to spite the rest of us.

Too pragmatic, not enough moralizing. Sad.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

but they can't get jobs, thats the reason they are poor...

Can't or won't?

 

[spamking]

So the solution is to throw more money at them.Got it.

Only for a short-time IMO . . . wean them off of the benefits after they have a full-time job.

 

[panamaican]

We have unemployment insurance for that.

No we don't. You have to work a certain amount of time before you qualify for unemployment insurance. People who haven't been able to find a job to begin with won't get unemployment. Also, unemployment is a finite benefit, it terminates after a certain period. If the individual cannot find a job before unemployment ends then they will end up homeless.

Also, do you think the government has a responsibility to remove the homeless from the streets?

 

[Headkicktoleg]

No we don't. You have to work a certain amount of time before you qualify for unemployment insurance. People who haven't been able to find a job to begin with won't get unemployment. Also, unemployment is a finite benefit, it terminates after a certain period. If the individual cannot find a job before unemployment ends then they will end up homeless.

Also, do you think the government has a responsibility to remove the homeless from the streets?

Benefits SHOULD be finite. Personally I'd much rather see free education than giving people checks.

 

[panamaican]

Benefits SHOULD be finite. Personally I'd much rather see free education than giving people checks.

So, that's 2x you didn't answer my question regarding the government's responsibility to remove homeless people from the streets.

And the finite nature of unemployment benefits isn't the problem I was highlighting. I was highlighting that your response - that people should just collect unemployment while looking for a job - was based on a complete misunderstanding of how unemployment works.

I understand the desire to make flippant, short-sighted comments about how benefits work in this country but it's an actual serious issue that cannot be properly resolved if people don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Falsedawn]

Benefits SHOULD be finite. Personally I'd much rather see free education than giving people checks.

We tried that with coal workers, they either balked or went into training for coal work.

What do you do in that situation (other than tank renewable energy and bring coal back)?

 

[spamking]

Another similar example of this being wrong is probably going to happen to many single parent teachers here in Oklahoma in a few months. Some of you may know that this past spring Oklahoma teachers walked out for increased funding or better management of existing education funding. The state threw them a bone and gave them a $5k/year raise.

There was a local story about how a single mom who taught would lose access to SoonerCare (state version of medicaid) for her kid because of the raise and that this would require her to add him to her healthcare plan. I think her $5k/year raise ended up costing her more out of check each month and didn't improve her financial situation at all.

 

[Rational Poster]

The "war on poverty" began on January 8th 1964.

We've been trying the same policy for 54 years, and poverty has only gotten worse since the beginning of the "war on poverty".

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

It's time to end this half a century old failed program. It ended up creating a cycle of dependency for the people it was intended to help.

This is just 100% not true. The data does not support your feelings.

Even during the height of the recession the poverty rate was lower than it was prior to 1965.

 

[panamaican]

Another similar example of this being wrong is probably going to happen to many single parent teachers here in Oklahoma in a few months. Some of you may know that this past spring Oklahoma teachers walked out for increased funding or better management of existing education funding. The state threw them a bone and gave them a $5k/year raise.

There was a local story about how a single mom who taught would lose access to SoonerCare (state version of medicaid) for her kid because of the raise and that this would require her to add him to her healthcare plan. I think her $5k/year raise ended up costing her more out of check each month and didn't improve her financial situation at all.

That sucks. Here's a raise that actually reduces how much you take home.