- #211
rootX
- 478
- 4
jjoyce said:
jjoyce said:
I can argue that 28,000 is not a big number.
Last edited by a moderator:
jjoyce said:Could we call a government ( the U.S.), that spends $250,000 a year per family of four in poverty, on welfare programs, and has a poverty rate that has been increasing since the 1960's when the war on poverty started, a fraud ?
jjoyce said:Thank you for welcoming me !
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...st-of-means-tested-welfare-or-aid-to-the-poor
http://alineofsight.com/policy/most-expensive%E2%80%94and-least-successful%E2%80%94war-us-history
http://www.galvestonogp.org/GHA/SR_67.pdf
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2481846/posts
jjoyce said:a poverty rate that has been increasing since the 1960
Replace democracy with financial system--It represents reality more effectively. Political system is enmeshed with corporate wealth which triangulates with financial sector (e.g. Goldman Sachs was second highest capital contributor to the Obama campaign).thephysicsman said:Which it is. Violence begets violence. If you help legitimizing a system (wrongly called "democracy") where a majority can grab money from the minorities, then do not be surprised if these minorities plot together to grab back some of what they've lost. If you support a system based on the principle "everybody must join, nobody is allowed to escape", then do not be surprised if one day you suddenly have to flee the country or end up in a work camp unable to escape. If you are a fan of a system that punishes productivity, then do not be surprised if the productive ones conclude that existing as slaves for others is unbearable, and run away leaving the parasites helpless on their own. The downfall of civilization is the logical conclusion of a political system based on the initiation of force against innocent and productive people.
So my advice is to choose your actions carefully, for what you do to others tend to be the prevailing principle in society if enough people do it, and then they will do exactly the same to you. Therefore, choose your policies carefully, and do not pretend that you can avoid their consequences.
rootX said:I can argue that 28,000 is not a big number.
Minimum wage per hour is 7.75 (http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm) or 14,880 per year (40 hours of work per week).WhoWee said:Please do?
rootX said:Minimum wage per hour is 7.75 (http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm) or 14,880 per year (40 hours of work per week).
Article came up with 28,000 number by multiplying 7,000 by 4 (On average, welfare spending amounts to around $7,000 per year for each individual who is poor or who has an income below 200 percent of the poverty level).
So, incentive of working at minimum wage is still present because you can make almost double by going into workforce.
WhoWee said:A family of 4 living on minimum wage would earn $7,000 by 2 (adults) = $14,000 - they would make double that on welfare?
rootX said:Do children also considered individual in this statement?
"On average, welfare spending amounts to around $7,000 per year for each individual who is poor or who has an income below 200 percent of the poverty level. This comes to $28,000 per year for each lower-income family of four."
Malcom said:Poverty generates crimes,frustration and complexities.It should not exist in society any where in the world.I think the governments can play very dominant role in this problem.
Yes publicly funded grade schools, so to be affordable to all, not publicly run. I think the failure of so many to take advantage of public education as you pointed out earlier is, in part, the fault of state ownership of the schools.russ_watters said:And more important for prevention, public schools!
WhoWee said:This is an open question - is a 20% reduction in welfare benefits unreasonable given the current state of the US economy? This would include payments to Section 8 landlords?
russ_watters said:I realize I said I was answering the question directly but I really didn't. My answer is no, poverty should not be comfortable because if it is comfortable, many people won't make an effort to get out of it.
WhoWee said:Based on World Bank figures which are used for official global poverty statistics, the number of people living below the international poverty line of $1.25 per day fell from 1.8 billion to 1.4 billion between 1990 and 2005."[/I]
John Creighto said:What does the world standard mean though in terms of the standard of living. Is it a bowl of rice a week? Clearly in a country like america the bar should be set slightly higher. It is someowhat meaningless to base the bar on income alone as the living costs varry significantly between the developed an underdeveloped world.
Many politicians and their trouble-makers on the right act like SS benefits are a cornucopia of "free money" for slackers who don't deserve it. They also pretend that SS is increasing the deficit, despite the fact that SS is self-funded and can be made fully solvent into the foreseeable future by just increasing the amount of earnings that can be subjected to payroll taxes. Since the wealthy are earning more and more, while the wages of the poor are flat, this would appear to be the most equitable solution. Right-wing reactionaries will disagree, predictably.loquita2 said:i am an individule on social security and get under 800 a month, Which would be great if i had no bills. Mostly all of money goes on bills and I live with people, and I have to pay 1/3 of all the bills everybody else has to pay. Plus things like a car/which means gas and maintainence, cable, cellphone are not budgeted. Social programs do not give money for these things. Which I think are necessary.