Is U.S. Poverty Too Comfortable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether poverty in the U.S. has become too comfortable, highlighting the official poverty level for a family of four at $22,350. Comparisons are made to global poverty standards, suggesting that U.S. poverty is relatively high. Concerns are raised about welfare systems, with calls for better oversight to ensure assistance goes to those truly in need. The conversation also touches on the challenges of home ownership, linking it to rising real estate prices and the cultural tendency to live beyond one's means. Ultimately, the debate emphasizes the need for a balance between providing support and encouraging self-sufficiency.
  • #151
I think poverty should be comfortable for some people but uncomfortable for others. The lazy-for example should suffer the consequences of the poverty they bring on themselves.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Radrook said:
I think poverty should be comfortable for some people but uncomfortable for others. The lazy-for example should suffer the consequences of the poverty they bring on themselves.

Recently, I've heard arguments suggesting that total benefits be limited to the value of a 40 hour minimum wage work week and the introduction of Medicaid (only) healthcare facilities for preventative care - instead of treating cold and flu symptoms in the emergency rooms of the newest hospitals. I've also heard many arguments made for a "work for welfare" program - where able-bodied beneficiaries are given a community service job in exchange for benefits - others might work from home on the telephone or via computer - with time accounted and credited to earn benefits.

Any thoughts on these topics?
 
  • #153
russ_watters said:
I do, in fact, believe that socialism is fascism!

It's a form of fascism.
 
  • #154
thephysicsman said:
...
Possibly, but that has no bearing on the truth of my claim. Here are the ten most profitable companies in America in 2009 according to Fortune 500:

1. Exxon Mobil
2. Microsoft
3. Wal-Mart
4. Procter & Gamble
5. IBM
6. Goldman Sachs
7. Merk
8. AT&T
9. Wells Fargo
10. Johnson and Johnson

There's not the slightest chance you'll find any racism in the policies of these companies. They simply can't afford it.
You haven't shown that to be the case, but yes that's possible. More likely, what they can not afford is the possibility of thousands of arildno minded people (plus me) protesting such action in front of their corporate HQ's and boycotting their products, exactly as arildno called for.
 
  • #155
russ_watters said:
...
To make matters worse, I do, in fact, believe that socialism is fascism! I don't know what's real anymore!

thephysicsman said:
It's a form of fascism.
I think it's the other way around, fascism is just a form of socialism. The Nazis set out to differentiate their form from the Russians, hence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism" . The US under Wilson and Roosevelt had many aspects of its own form of fascist socialism, with many gushing admirers of Mussolini.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #156
BilPrestonEsq said:
Wow,Ok you get cancer and you can't go to work anymore, your wife died years ago and you have to take care of your 2 children on your own. NOW WHAT?
In this specific case consider that your private financial reserves in anticipation of catastrophic events are almost certainly reduced because of government burdens - through taxes, through a lowered chance of employment in the economy at large because of those same taxes and through regulation, through medical lawsuits forcing doctors to leave a practice that might have treated your cancer, through direct government action preventing you from starting a business that might compete with entrenched interests cozy with government. That of course doesn't mean that government has provided you some benefits, built roads along the way, provided security, etc, but none that detracts from the points I just listed.

The free market is not certainly not perfect in its ability to solve problems, nor are the people operating in it either in economic or moral terms. But through out your arguments here I see an almost complete refusal to accept that the same fallible people work in government and thus government will have its own failings, more so because there's little and often no incentive to improve, and seldom a forced collapse of obviously failed government initiatives as is seen in the private sector. So any proposed governmental solution to this or that perceived problem in society has to be seen as a trade off: societal problem against the certain seen and unforeseen problems that will created by government entering the arena, and doing, under the US constitution anyway, what it was not created to do.
 
  • #157
thephysicsman said:
... it's not American.
Careful there. Ben Franklin, due in part to the ransacking of Pennsylvania by the French and Indians and the refusal the wealthy Penn founders to allow themselves to be taxed to fund a militia:
Ben Franklin said:
All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Benjamin.Franklin.Quote.87E3

I don't agree with the full extent of what Franklin says there, but I see his point and always love his way with words, especially that famous next to last sentence.
 
  • #158
We could tie government benefits to the receiver giving up the right to reproduce. They would have a simple vasectomy or tubaligation (sic) and then why not give them a comfortable life style after they opt out of the evolutionary competition?
 
  • #159
PhilKravitz said:
We could tie government benefits to the receiver giving up the right to reproduce. They would have a simple vasectomy or tubaligation (sic) and then why not give them a comfortable life style after they opt out of the evolutionary competition?

That doesn't sound like an acceptable "comfort level" - what if the person went back to school and found a good job? How would these procedures encourage him to get off welfare?
 
  • #160
PhilKravitz said:
We could tie government benefits to the receiver giving up the right to reproduce. They would have a simple vasectomy or tubaligation (sic) and then why not give them a comfortable life style after they opt out of the evolutionary competition?

Ha! That is completely twisted, but I can appreciate the concept. This could almost be viewed as a more humane way of dealing with evolutionary change."Opt out of evolutionary competition". That's good stuff.
 
  • #161
mheslep said:
In this specific case consider that your private financial reserves in anticipation of catastrophic events are almost certainly reduced because of government burdens - through taxes, through a lowered chance of employment in the economy at large because of those same taxes and through regulation, through medical lawsuits forcing doctors to leave a practice that might have treated your cancer, through direct government action preventing you from starting a business that might compete with entrenched interests cozy with government. That of course doesn't mean that government has provided you some benefits, built roads along the way, provided security, etc, but none that detracts from the points I just listed.

The free market is not certainly not perfect in its ability to solve problems, nor are the people operating in it either in economic or moral terms. But through out your arguments here I see an almost complete refusal to accept that the same fallible people work in government and thus government will have its own failings, more so because there's little and often no incentive to improve, and seldom a forced collapse of obviously failed government initiatives as is seen in the private sector. So any proposed governmental solution to this or that perceived problem in society has to be seen as a trade off: societal problem against the certain seen and unforeseen problems that will created by government entering the arena, and doing, under the US constitution anyway, what it was not created to do.

I agree. I also agree with Ben Franklin there. That fallibility,as you pointed out, is an inherent part of humanity and can be found in anarchists and socialists alike. I think it is law that counterbalances those fallibilities. It is also a society's(or the majority's rather) ability to make or change law that defines it's strength in counterbalancing those inherent human fallibilities. Law is imposed on everyone in the society and intended to take away an advantage one could get over another. So whether it is government, free market or individual all will follow an inherent inclination to become corrupted in order to compete with each other for survival(IMO). Law or the majority's control over law decides the fate of the majority.
 
  • #162
BilPrestonEsq said:
I agree. I also agree with Ben Franklin there.
I don't agree with all what Franklin says in that quote but thought his comments relevant in response to the comment up thread on taxes being un-American.

Law is imposed on everyone in the society and intended to take away an advantage one could get over another.
Whoa. Is that really what you meant to say, as opposed to the intent of the law is to prevent one from harming another?
 
  • #163
mheslep said:
I don't agree with all what Franklin says in that quote but thought his comments relevant in response to the comment up thread on taxes being un-American.

Whoa. Is that really what you meant to say, as opposed to the intent of the law is to prevent one from harming another?

No, I meant what I said. To be able to legally harm someone, is having an advantage over them. If you read it again especially:"That fallibility,as you pointed out, is an inherent part of humanity and can be found in anarchists and socialists alike." I like the way you said it:
The free market is not certainly not perfect in its ability to solve problems, nor are the people operating in it either in economic or moral terms. But through out your arguments here I see an almost complete refusal to accept that the same fallible people work in government and thus government will have its own failings, more so because there's little and often no incentive to improve, and seldom a forced collapse of obviously failed government initiatives as is seen in the private sector. So any proposed governmental solution to this or that perceived problem in society has to be seen as a trade off: societal problem against the certain seen and unforeseen problems that will created by government entering the arena, and doing, under the US constitution anyway, what it was not created to do.
(My bold) Those two points inparticular. LAW: binding or enforceable rule: a rule of conduct or procedure recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority. This authority comes from either the community or evolution. Ok, So I am still have some work to do in articulating this concept so that not just I understand it. What I am saying is anarchists and socialists abide by the same laws one way or another and there are trade offs. The most important thing is that the majority has control over the law that controls themselves. Whether there is 10 people or 1,000,000,000 people. I used to be a Ron Paul supporter for a few reasons but those ideals only lead us backwards and my theory is we will inevitably in time come back to the same place we are at now. Frustrated with the aristocrats that have taken over the country. I think most Americans would agree that is what has happened in the U.S.. Back to the OP(sort of)... If you take away the power from these aristocrats and put it back in the hands of the majority there is no need to limit government. Either the poor will be cared for or evolution will take it's course. If you have a problem with majority rule then you should probably move into the wild as Ben Franklin suggested. A well informed and vigil majority is the key.
 
Last edited:
  • #164
BilPrestonEsq said:
No, I meant what I said. To be able to legally harm someone, is having an advantage over them. If you read it again especially:"That fallibility,as you pointed out, is an inherent part of humanity and can be found in anarchists and socialists alike."
Yes of course but the reverse is not at all true - that to have an advantage over another is also necessarily to harm them. If you happen to have the ability to hit a baseball out of major league ballpark on a regular basis or play flawless classical sonatas you have a major advantage over me in physical ability and likely earning power, but you do no harm to me because of that innate ability. Certainly the point of law is not to take that advantage away from you.
 
  • #165
mheslep said:
Yes of course but the reverse is not at all true - that to have an advantage over another is also necessarily to harm them. If you happen to have the ability to hit a baseball out of major league ballpark on a regular basis or play flawless classical sonatas you have a major advantage over me in physical ability and likely earning power, but you do no harm to me because of that innate ability. Certainly the point of law is not to take that advantage away from you.

No, law should be there to allow those kinds of abilities flourish. It is really a matter of using law to encourage that kind of inherent human creative, imagination powered awesomeness and limit those inherent human fallibilities. I think we have yet to find that balance. Anyways law is for those that don't want to 'play nice'. That is why I believe in some kind of welfare that everyone has to pay into. That way those that would not want to contribute to say a volunteer charity, have to, or they can move to antartica and be 'free'. To let some people not pay will give them the advantage and take away from those that want to pay. Either way there will always be people in need, I just think that is the most fair way to deal with it. I don't see how anyone can disagree unless of course they want anarchy, which I can understand given the state of the country.
It really is a very natural feeling to have, I just know that anarchy has it's own problems. It is the lack of acknowleging these problems that makes it seem attractive in comparison. That is idealistic.
 
Last edited:
  • #166
BilPrestonEsq said:
No, law should be there to allow those kinds of abilities flourish. It is really a matter of using law to encourage that kind of inherent human creative, imagination powered awesomeness and limit those inherent human fallibilities.
That smacks of central planning. Again, you're referring here to law as some kind of disembodied good that can operate without personal corruption. Laws are made by governments consisting of corruptible people. Laws are dangerous things, and should be treated like fire, as Washington said, used with caution, only sparingly and when absolutely necessary.

I think we have yet to find that balance. Anyways law is for those that don't want to 'play nice'. That is why I believe in some kind of welfare that everyone has to pay into. That way those that would not want to contribute to say a volunteer charity, have to, or they can move to antartica and be 'free'. To let some people not pay will give them the advantage and take away from those that want to pay. Either way there will always be people in need, I just think that is the most fair way to deal with it. I don't see how anyone can disagree unless of course they want anarchy, which I can understand given the state of the country.
I see here a list of things you want, not a coherent argument. The American colonies and later the US managed to avoid anarchy for a couple of centuries or so without welfare laws. Along the way there have been freely organized charitable organizations.
 
  • #167
BilPrestonEsq said:
The most important thing is that the majority has control over the law that controls themselves. Whether there is 10 people or 1,000,000,000 people. I used to be a Ron Paul supporter for a few reasons but those ideals only lead us backwards and my theory is we will inevitably in time come back to the same place we are at now. Frustrated with the aristocrats that have taken over the country. I think most Americans would agree that is what has happened in the U.S.. Back to the OP(sort of)... If you take away the power from these aristocrats and put it back in the hands of the majority there is no need to limit government. Either the poor will be cared for or evolution will take it's course. If you have a problem with majority rule then you should probably move into the wild as Ben Franklin suggested. A well informed and vigil majority is the key.

Who are the aristocrats that have taken over the US? Also, what happens when the power (of the vote) increases the size, scope, and spending of Government - how will it ever be limited - other than collapse?

Again, how much is enough - how comfortable should a person "living in poverty be" - how is collapse of the system prevented?
 
  • #168
mheslep said:
That smacks of central planning. Again, you're referring here to law as some kind of disembodied good that can operate without personal corruption. Laws are made by governments consisting of corruptible people. Laws are dangerous things, and should be treated like fire, as Washington said, used with caution, only sparingly and when absolutely necessary.


Like I said a couple posts ago, A well informed and vigil majority is the key. Laws can be dangerous, I agree. If the majority is not willing to pay attention then...
It could be that once government gets to a certain size it becomes almost impossible for the majority to be informed of everything that is going on. That could be a case against large government. However I do think that giving to those in need should be mandated. I disagree with the inefficient and unfair structure of entitlement programs, but I do stand by the idea of taxing to give to the poor.
If you don't redistribute wealth then you will ultimately have a aristocracy. If you have money you can make money, without any contribution of the real work necessary. The more money you have the easier it is to make more with less and less actual work. The oppostite is also true. To deny that in order to stay true to certain belief structure is at the benefit of whom? Well let's see... the super rich benefit from the majority sharing that belief. The loyalty to any 'ism' is dangerous in my opinion.


I see here a list of things you want, not a coherent argument. The American colonies and later the US managed to avoid anarchy for a couple of centuries or so without welfare laws. Along the way there have been freely organized charitable organizations.

That is not what I want, trust me. What I want is for people to all play nice with each other and to treat others as they would like to be treated, without laws. Self-discipline, that's what I want. Unfortunetely that is not going to happen. Maybe one day, but certainly not anytime soon. Why is it that those who want to go backwards hundreds of years, seem to paint a picture of a warm and fuzzy time where brother help brother and the like. What are you basing that on? Where these public charities taking care of everyone? How was the quality of life? I bet it wasn't so good for the slaves men used to own back then. What I want and what you want may not be so different. What I want is for those that cannot care for themselves be taken care of. I want people that can take care of themselves to do so. I also want things to be fair for everyone. That last one, that is the tricky one. That should be a new thread. If the major incentive to 'win' in a free market is money, there are going to be problems. If money is a tool of survival, then making money is touching at the root of of our existence and all our fears as well. You have to keep in mind what money is and what money replaced in our lives to really get a grasp on it's importance. I am really getting to far from the topic so...
 
  • #169
BillPreston92 said:
Like I said a couple posts ago, A well informed and vigil majority is the key. Laws can be dangerous, I agree. If the majority is not willing to pay attention then...
It could be that once government gets to a certain size it becomes almost impossible for the majority to be informed of everything that is going on. That could be a case against large government. However I do think that giving to those in need should be mandated. I disagree with the inefficient and unfair structure of entitlement programs, but I do stand by the idea of taxing to give to the poor.
If you don't redistribute wealth then you will ultimately have a aristocracy. If you have money you can make money, without any contribution of the real work necessary. The more money you have the easier it is to make more with less and less actual work. The oppostite is also true. To deny that in order to stay true to certain belief structure is at the benefit of whom? Well let's see... the super rich benefit from the majority sharing that belief. The loyalty to any 'ism' is dangerous in my opinion.




That is not what I want, trust me. What I want is for people to all play nice with each other and to treat others as they would like to be treated, without laws. Self-discipline, that's what I want. Unfortunetely that is not going to happen. Maybe one day, but certainly not anytime soon. Why is it that those who want to go backwards hundreds of years, seem to paint a picture of a warm and fuzzy time where brother help brother and the like. What are you basing that on? Where these public charities taking care of everyone? How was the quality of life? I bet it wasn't so good for the slaves men used to own back then. What I want and what you want may not be so different. What I want is for those that cannot care for themselves be taken care of. I want people that can take care of themselves to do so. I also want things to be fair for everyone. That last one, that is the tricky one. That should be a new thread. If the major incentive to 'win' in a free market is money, there are going to be problems. If money is a tool of survival, then making money is touching at the root of of our existence and all our fears as well. You have to keep in mind what money is and what money replaced in our lives to really get a grasp on it's importance. I am really getting to far from the topic so...

I'll ask again - how much is enough? How comfortable should poverty be for a beneficiary of tax payer funds?
 
  • #170
WhoWee said:
Who are the aristocrats that have taken over the US? Also, what happens when the power (of the vote) increases the size, scope, and spending of Government - how will it ever be limited - other than collapse?

Again, how much is enough - how comfortable should a person "living in poverty be" - how is collapse of the system prevented?

aristocracy: government by wealthy, privileged minority or hereditary ruling class.
Now to ignore the influence of the top percent of wealthy individuals and families would be insanely naive. Look at the Bush family, just one example. Now many may disagree with me, not sure why, but I really don't think GW Bush would have become president had he not been the son of GHW Bush. If you have money you have power. If you have power you have influence.
Wealth is passed down from generation to generation, generally. Do all politicians in office seem to be the best candidate for the job, really? How does the majority choose their candidate? Television and news coverage. If you become aware of American history, the economic and political history in particular it should shed some light on why I believe we have become aristocracy or more accurately an oligarchy, and not a democracy. That fire of freedom that the founding fathers had, cannot ever be extinguished, a democracy is not something that is reached, it is something that must be maintained. Unfortunately that fire has burned out many, many years ago.

Well that was off topic, but you asked so...

how comfortable should a person "living in poverty be" - how is collapse of the system prevented

A person who cannot provide for themselves should still have a decent life. I would define a decent life as having all the things necessary for survival. Adequate food, clean water, and a clean and 'healthy' shelter. The collapse of the system can be avoided by the majority having the ability to make a comfortable living and to also provide for those that cannot provide for themselves. If money is distributed to those that can provide for themselves and don't because of their own laziness then the system will inevitably collapse.
Defining what a comfortable life really means is open to so many opinions. What some may define as a comfortable even privelaged life to others may be considered poverty. Take Paris Hilton and give her what most would consider a comfortable middle class lifestyle and she would most likely be miserable. I guess we should try to find out what it takes for a person to live comfortably 'off the land' first. How many hours of work a week on average does it take to meet the current expectations of a middle class american lifestyle if you are relying only on yourself. You could figure out how much land it takes to grow enough fruits and vegetable and whatnot for one life at a certain age expectancy. How much land is needed for all the meat consumed by an average american in a lifetime. How many trees are needed to build a house. That kind of thing. You can also figure out how much more you would need in order to trade for things that aren't a necessaty. I am sure it could get very complicated. But I think it would be necessary in order to really accurately understand what it takes to have the lifestyles that middle class americans are used to. I am willing to find a certain chunk of information necessary as it is a lot of work for one person. What do you think?
 
  • #171
BillPreston92 said:
aristocracy: government by wealthy, privileged minority or hereditary ruling class.
Now to ignore the influence of the top percent of wealthy individuals and families would be insanely naive. Look at the Bush family, just one example. Now many may disagree with me, not sure why, but I really don't think GW Bush would have become president had he not been the son of GHW Bush. If you have money you have power. If you have power you have influence.
Wealth is passed down from generation to generation, generally. Do all politicians in office seem to be the best candidate for the job, really? How does the majority choose their candidate? Television and news coverage. If you become aware of American history, the economic and political history in particular it should shed some light on why I believe we have become aristocracy or more accurately an oligarchy, and not a democracy. That fire of freedom that the founding fathers had, cannot ever be extinguished, a democracy is not something that is reached, it is something that must be maintained. Unfortunately that fire has burned out many, many years ago.

Well that was off topic, but you asked so...



A person who cannot provide for themselves should still have a decent life. I would define a decent life as having all the things necessary for survival. Adequate food, clean water, and a clean and 'healthy' shelter. The collapse of the system can be avoided by the majority having the ability to make a comfortable living and to also provide for those that cannot provide for themselves. If money is distributed to those that can provide for themselves and don't because of their own laziness then the system will inevitably collapse.
Defining what a comfortable life really means is open to so many opinions. What some may define as a comfortable even privelaged life to others may be considered poverty. Take Paris Hilton and give her what most would consider a comfortable middle class lifestyle and she would most likely be miserable. I guess we should try to find out what it takes for a person to live comfortably 'off the land' first. How many hours of work a week on average does it take to meet the current expectations of a middle class american lifestyle if you are relying only on yourself. You could figure out how much land it takes to grow enough fruits and vegetable and whatnot for one life at a certain age expectancy. How much land is needed for all the meat consumed by an average american in a lifetime. How many trees are needed to build a house. That kind of thing. You can also figure out how much more you would need in order to trade for things that aren't a necessaty. I am sure it could get very complicated. But I think it would be necessary in order to really accurately understand what it takes to have the lifestyles that middle class americans are used to. I am willing to find a certain chunk of information necessary as it is a lot of work for one person. What do you think?

Who should have the power to make these redistribution of wealth decisions?
 
  • #172
WhoWee said:
Who should have the power to make these redistribution of wealth decisions?

The majority



How many hours of work a week on average does it take to meet the current expectations of a middle class american lifestyle if you are relying only on yourself. You could figure out how much land it takes to grow enough fruits and vegetable and whatnot for one life at a certain age expectancy. How much land is needed for all the meat consumed by an average american in a lifetime. How many trees are needed to build a house. That kind of thing. You can also figure out how much more you would need in order to trade for things that aren't a necessaty. I am sure it could get very complicated. But I think it would be necessary in order to really accurately understand what it takes to have the lifestyles that middle class americans are used to. I am willing to find a certain chunk of information necessary as it is a lot of work for one person. What do you think?

What do you think about that being a starting point for understanding what it takes in resources and man hours to produce a typical middle class lifestyle?
 
  • #173
BillPreston92 said:
The majority


What do you think about that being a starting point for understanding what it takes in resources and man hours to produce a typical middle class lifestyle?

From your examples - you want to vote on what the Bush and Hilton families can keep?

As for the middle class lifestyle - it requires income from work.
 
  • #174
WhoWee said:
From your examples - you want to vote on what the Bush and Hilton families can keep?

Sure, why not. If making money becomes easier the more money you have, and if the more money you have the more influence you have, then yes. Are you personally extremely wealthy? If you are then I can understand your problem with that. If you are not then why would you have a problem with a stiffer tax on the top percentage of wealthy individuals?


As for the middle class lifestyle - it requires income from work.

Yeah, I know, and that is an incredibly simplistic answer. That is why I was thinking it would be a good idea to find out what it takes in resources and man hours to create the same conditions as a middle class american lifestyle. That would be more accurate don't you think? That way you would know what it takes to support one's self. That would be a good starting point in figuring out what is possible for that same someone to give, and to how many people.
 
  • #175
BillPreston92 said:
...If you are then I can understand your problem with that. If you are not then why would you have a problem with a stiffer tax on the top percentage of wealthy individuals?
Because:
First they [the majority] came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they [the majority] came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they [the majority] came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they [the majority] came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
 
  • #176
BillPreston92 said:
Sure, why not. If making money becomes easier the more money you have, and if the more money you have the more influence you have, then yes. Are you personally extremely wealthy? If you are then I can understand your problem with that. If you are not then why would you have a problem with a stiffer tax on the top percentage of wealthy individuals?


Yeah, I know, and that is an incredibly simplistic answer. That is why I was thinking it would be a good idea to find out what it takes in resources and man hours to create the same conditions as a middle class american lifestyle. That would be more accurate don't you think? That way you would know what it takes to support one's self. That would be a good starting point in figuring out what is possible for that same someone to give, and to how many people.

I just wanted to be clear - you are in favor of putting it on the ballot - to allow the majority to vote on whether the top 5% of income earners should give money to the other 95%?

As for the middle income lifestyle - are you suggesting the top 5% should elevate everyone else to the middle class level?
 
  • #177
mheslep said:
Because:

Wow. I didn't expect that! That qoute is about the apathy of German citizens in the Nazi rise to power, and I know... you know that already.. The power of propaganda is sickening...
How is that anyway comparable? Are you actually comparing the top 5% of wealthy individuals to a german pastor in Nazi Germany?
Ohhh the poor super rich elite aristocrats in contol of the entire nation. My heart goes out to them.
I will be playing the worlds smallest violin for them just as soon as I finish this post...
 
  • #178
WhoWee said:
I just wanted to be clear - you are in favor of putting it on the ballot - to allow the majority to vote on whether the top 5% of income earners should give money to the other 95%?

As for the middle income lifestyle - are you suggesting the top 5% should elevate everyone else to the middle class level?

No I am not saying that. Why would you choose to ignore the other part of my post, the possibly productive part? The part where I am more than willing to help answer the OP.
You don't think that would be a productive way to figure out the sustainability of entitlement programs?

Here are the current tax bracketshttp://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm"

I have no problem with this as is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #179
BillPreston92 said:
No I am not saying that. Why would you choose to ignore the other part of my post, the possibly productive part? The part where I am more than willing to help answer the OP.
You don't think that would be a productive way to figure out the sustainability of entitlement programs?

Here are the current tax bracketshttp://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm"

I have no problem with this as is.

Please clarify specifically - I'm really not certain which part of your post you're referring to - I'm not ignoring anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #180
WhoWee said:
Please clarify specifically - I'm really not certain which part of your post you're referring to - I'm not ignoring anything.

What I am saying is we should try to figure out what it takes in resources and man hours to sustain a lifestyle similar to an average middle class american. For example how many acres does it take to provide the food that an average american consumes in a lifetime. Also how many hours does it take to maintain said acreage. How many hours does it take to build an average home, how much lumber. That sort of thing. I think it would be a more accurate representation of how much an average person needs to maintain such quality of life and therefore how much they can give. Do you see what I am getting at? Looking at wages only can be deceptive because of all the economic factors that effect wage.
 
  • #181
WhoWee said:
BillPreston92 said:
I'll ask again - how much is enough? How comfortable should poverty be for a beneficiary of tax payer funds?

I've been thinking about this for days, and I can only come up with gut reactions and ideology. I don't think that there IS an answer unless the data exists to perform a meta-longitudenal study on outcomes of poverty under different circumstances.

If you're in poverty because that check goes into a pipe or a syringe or a pill... well, probably it should be really miserable. Of course, it will be miserable for all kinds of reasons. If you're in poverty because you've had lots of kids, now I'd LIKE to say something nasty, but there are wider implications there I'm not going to touch.
If you're in poverty for the reason lots are, then I dont' see how it's comfortable: being born into poverty from poverty correlates with a pretty awful life.

I think we also need to ask what we're gaining by making life comfortable or uncomfortable in this case. We already KNOW that people can live and die in poverty beyond belief... is it motivating them in some way?

BillPreston92/Esquire: So our policy should be based on the prefernces of who is currently wealthy? That's not policy, that's random, and it's the flipside of slashing programs like Pell Grants. By that logic, victims should sentence the guilty, which IS a logic some use... we don't.
 
  • #182
BillPreston92 said:
What I am saying is we should try to figure out what it takes in resources and man hours to sustain a lifestyle similar to an average middle class american. For example how many acres does it take to provide the food that an average american consumes in a lifetime. Also how many hours does it take to maintain said acreage. How many hours does it take to build an average home, how much lumber. That sort of thing. I think it would be a more accurate representation of how much an average person needs to maintain such quality of life and therefore how much they can give. Do you see what I am getting at? Looking at wages only can be deceptive because of all the economic factors that effect wage.

The lifestyle of the average middle class American isn't sustainable for American, never mind the world. Do you understand that?
 
  • #183
BillPreston92 said:
What I am saying is we should try to figure out what it takes in resources and man hours to sustain a lifestyle similar to an average middle class american. For example how many acres does it take to provide the food that an average american consumes in a lifetime. Also how many hours does it take to maintain said acreage. How many hours does it take to build an average home, how much lumber. That sort of thing. I think it would be a more accurate representation of how much an average person needs to maintain such quality of life and therefore how much they can give. Do you see what I am getting at? Looking at wages only can be deceptive because of all the economic factors that effect wage.

What would you propose to do with that information?
 
  • #184
nismaratwork said:
WhoWee said:
If you're in poverty because that check goes into a pipe or a syringe or a pill... well, probably it should be really miserable.

This is valid. IMO - the beneficiaries should be accountable. There should be incentives to kick a drug habit.
 
  • #185
WhoWee said:
nismaratwork said:
This is valid. IMO - the beneficiaries should be accountable. There should be incentives to kick a drug habit.

I'd agree not just from a moral view, but it's also generally considered a fairly necessary part of that kicking process. Even in the disease model of addiction, making an addict "comfy" in their addiction is basically killing them. You don't have to hurt them, just put them face-to-face with the realities of their addiction: loss of friends, money, home, respect, etc.

I don't see how that doesn't apply elsewhere, BUT...
(you knew a but was coming, right?)

...Mental health. MOST drug addicts aren't mentally ill, but a whole hell of a lot of mentally ill people are addicted to drugs. In some cases, such as Bipolar Disorder you have estimates that start to push 80% in the more respectable sources, to the more general view which is nearly 100%. Now in that context not only is it pointless to pretend that accountability is the same (not competency mind).

In the same way, if you put 100 madly driven, talented people in desperate poverty from birth, what are their odds? I truly don't know, so this isn't a trap, I just feel I need a sense of that before your basic question can be answered. Just how fair is the playing field once you're on the bottom, even if you have talent, wits, and that great American quality: hustle.
 
  • #186
nismaratwork said:
WhoWee said:
I'd agree not just from a moral view, but it's also generally considered a fairly necessary part of that kicking process. Even in the disease model of addiction, making an addict "comfy" in their addiction is basically killing them. You don't have to hurt them, just put them face-to-face with the realities of their addiction: loss of friends, money, home, respect, etc.

I don't see how that doesn't apply elsewhere, BUT...
(you knew a but was coming, right?)

...Mental health. MOST drug addicts aren't mentally ill, but a whole hell of a lot of mentally ill people are addicted to drugs. In some cases, such as Bipolar Disorder you have estimates that start to push 80% in the more respectable sources, to the more general view which is nearly 100%. Now in that context not only is it pointless to pretend that accountability is the same (not competency mind).

In the same way, if you put 100 madly driven, talented people in desperate poverty from birth, what are their odds? I truly don't know, so this isn't a trap, I just feel I need a sense of that before your basic question can be answered. Just how fair is the playing field once you're on the bottom, even if you have talent, wits, and that great American quality: hustle.

IMO - it's better for the system and the people to find a way to help people kick their dependency - whatever it might be.
 
  • #187
nismaratwork said:
The lifestyle of the average middle class American isn't sustainable for American, never mind the world. Do you understand that?

Oh I am very aware of that possibility. That is what I currently believe. That was the point of what I proposed. It would be important to figure out what is sustainable and how much can one afford to give. That would be necessary to make a decision on how much we can afford for entitlement programs.

BillPreston92/Esquire: So our policy should be based on the prefernces of who is currently wealthy? That's not policy, that's random, and it's the flipside of slashing programs like Pell Grants. By that logic, victims should sentence the guilty, which IS a logic some use... we don't.

What did I say that would create this response? I did not say that policy should be based on those that are currently wealthy. What I said is that starting at creating what middle class americans consider comfortable. If that is found to be unsustainable that would be pretty important to the subject of entitlement programs.
 
  • #188
BillPreston92 said:
Oh I am very aware of that possibility. That is what I currently believe. That was the point of what I proposed. It would be important to figure out what is sustainable and how much can one afford to give. That would be necessary to make a decision on how much we can afford for entitlement programs.

While one is concerned with evening the score, do you think other nations will be? This just isn't connected to political or human reality in any way I've seen in life. The issue with entitlements isn't the CONCEPT, it's the execution. If we rebuilt it to be fiscally sound, then as WhoWee is essentially telling me in his previous post, the SYSTEM should inform US about the limits.



BillPreston92 said:
What did I say that would create this response? I did not say that policy should be based on those that are currently wealthy. What I said is that starting at creating what middle class americans consider comfortable. If that is found to be unsustainable that would be pretty important to the subject of entitlement programs.

You appealed to the notion that personal wealth or poverty (and all in between) should even be an issue. I see much more profit in changing our corporate tax structure to close loopeholes and to make it in line with every other developed nation.

I'm struck that honest attempts to create artificial equality end in something far from the original ideals. Humans have become the apex predators of a planet... we're going to experience the fate of all apex predators; reduction or extinction.

WhoWee: Agreed, but our mental health system has been destroyed in favor of our prison system and entitlements.
 
  • #189
nismaratwork said:
Agreed, but our mental health system has been destroyed in favor of our prison system and entitlements.

In another thread earlier today I made comment about converting the Post Office locations that will soon be closed into clinic locations for Medicaid. I don't know if that's feasible or not, but the premise is that Medicaid beneficiaries need easy access to preventative care. This would also eliminate the need for Medicaid beneficiaries to visit emergency rooms for cold symptoms. To staff the clinics, I put forth the idea of providing tax credits to doctors for their time.

On the topic of dependency, the methadone clinics seem to be left out of all relevant discussions. Care to bring it into this one?
 
  • #190
BillPreston92 said:
Wow. I didn't expect that! That qoute is about the apathy of German citizens in the Nazi rise to power, and I know... you know that already.. The power of propaganda is sickening...
How is that anyway comparable? ...
Its a metaphor. In the authority you grant to the majority you've mentioned no limits, nothing that would restrain that authority. I referenced a well known metaphor for what can happen when populous causes are granted unlimited authority. Do you believe any such limits are required? If so, what are they?
 
  • #191
nismaratwork said:
While one is concerned with evening the score, do you think other nations will be? This just isn't connected to political or human reality in any way I've seen in life. The issue with entitlements isn't the CONCEPT, it's the execution. If we rebuilt it to be fiscally sound, then as WhoWee is essentially telling me in his previous post, the SYSTEM should inform US about the limits.

I am really having trouble understanding that first sentence in context, why did you post that in response to what I just said?
If you don't know what it takes to sustain a 'comfortable' life in real things like food, water and shelter how is it possible to figure out how many lives can be sustained through entitlements? The system cannot inform us of our limits if the system was created by people. The only system that we can rely on for that information is our ecosystem. Understanding the limits of that system is a more reliable source. I don't need 'the economy' to survive. I can separate myself from a man made system, I cannot separate myself from the ecosystem. I cannot separate myself from the things that are necessary to my survival

You appealed to the notion that personal wealth or poverty (and all in between) should even be an issue. I see much more profit in changing our corporate tax structure to close loopeholes and to make it in line with every other developed nation.

I'm struck that honest attempts to create artificial equality end in something far from the original ideals. Humans have become the apex predators of a planet... we're going to experience the fate of all apex predators; reduction or extinction.

Yeah, with that attitude...

Joking, anyways are you saying that personal taxes should have nothing to do with entitlement programs. If the corporate tax was raised then all of the goods that company provided would then become more expensive, or jobs would be lost. So a corporate tax is more of a tax on the consumer than on the person making the most profit. If that person(CEO,president,whatever) had an increased tax on their own personal income it would be directly from them and not translate to the consumer or loss of jobs.
I am not sure how honest or good natured the attemts at equality have been in the past.
It is really something quite new to human civilization. That is a much larger question that pertains really to the nature of human beings. It is not something that has been sufficiently
studied from what I know.
 
  • #192
mheslep said:
Its a metaphor. In the authority you grant to the majority you've mentioned no limits, nothing that would restrain that authority. I referenced a well known metaphor for what can happen when populous causes are granted unlimited authority. Do you believe any such limits are required? If so, what are they?

Interesting question...

If you take away the power from the majority what do you have? Who is qualified to make judgement on the majority decision?

I do believe there should one limit. That is personal logic. The problem with coming to any logical conclusion is that one comes to such conclusions based on the information they have. We may disagree on something not because either person's logic is flawed but because of the different information we recieve. I think it is important to realize where various information comes from. They(GERMANS) should have used there own personal beliefs and their own logic to cut through the propaganda. I think this is a problem in any society. I find it interesting how the media can influence a large group of people to get behind things like removing tax cuts for the rich for example. Because the rich create jobs?
So it is possible to get a large group of lower middle class americans to support something that has no benefit to them by appealing to certain things like national pride."It's not american to tax! So take away those tax increases for the rich because they will create jobs for us!" Meanwhile, the super rich are laughing it up. That is the way I see it, but then again the information that I get is the only basis of my logical conclusions, and so that may change with new information.
 
  • #193
BillPreston92 said:
I find it interesting how the media can influence a large group of people to get behind things like removing tax cuts for the rich for example. Because the rich create jobs?
If the "rich" don't create jobs - who does?
 
  • #194
WhoWee said:
If the "rich" don't create jobs - who does?

Small businesses create jobs. The owners are closer to their employees and their communities. And are generally not filthy rich.


an analysis of the 2007 Census data shows that young firms (defined as one
to five years old) still account for roughly two-thirds of job creation, averaging nearly four
new jobs per firm per year. Of the overall 12 million new jobs added in 2007, young
firms were responsible for the creation of nearly 8 million of those jobs.

Given this information, it is clear that new and young companies and the entrepreneurs
that create them are the engines of job creation and eventual economic recovery. The
distinction of firm age, not necessarily size, as the driver of job creation has many
implications, particularly for policymakers who are focusing on small business as the
answer to a dire employment situation.

http://www.kauffman.org/research-and-policy/where-will-the-jobs-come-from.aspx"

That is just the first thing I grabbed off a search. I have heard this before and this could be a whole thread by itself. Where do most new jobs come from? Something like that...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #195
BillPreston92 said:
Small businesses create jobs. The owners are closer to their employees and their communities. And are generally not filthy rich.

Small businesses do create jobs, and I agree the owners are typically closer to their employees and the community. Some of these small businesses also generate millions of dollars in profits - what is the threshold for "filthy rich"?
 
  • #196
BillPreston92 said:
Small businesses create jobs. The owners are closer to their employees and their communities. And are generally not filthy rich.

Just out of curiosity, do you consider all of the fast food stores and the shops in your local mall "small businesses"?
 
  • #197
WhoWee said:
In another thread earlier today I made comment about converting the Post Office locations that will soon be closed into clinic locations for Medicaid. I don't know if that's feasible or not, but the premise is that Medicaid beneficiaries need easy access to preventative care. This would also eliminate the need for Medicaid beneficiaries to visit emergency rooms for cold symptoms. To staff the clinics, I put forth the idea of providing tax credits to doctors for their time.

On the topic of dependency, the methadone clinics seem to be left out of all relevant discussions. Care to bring it into this one?

Well, I'm not sure about converting post offices, but on the subject of Methadone... that is controversial. My personal belief is that it can be helpful, but it's not a sane way to treat addiction. As a treatment for pain, it's absolutely fantastic when it works. Given the incredible ease with which opiate addicts can get benzodiazapines (such as Xanax), and the effect of mixing it with Methadone, I tend to fall into the "horrified" group. Benzos are absolutely devastating in terms of physical dependency, and when you discover someone is taking 10-20 mg per DAY... I can't even express my outrage.

What's the solution?... stick the poor bastards on enough Barbiturates to float the Titanic, and tug the Benzos, then wean off the barbiturates. Titrating down from those massive doses is a process of months if not years, so... yeah, I'm not a fan of Methadone clinics AT ALL. We need to move beyond "12 steps", or other drugs in the treatment of addiction, and I just don't see that happening right now. Pseudoscience has a HUGE role to play in this as well, but it's not relevant to the topic.

To get back to your clinic notion, I'll say this: ignoring the obvious difficulties implementing them (clearly you were giving an example, an idea of your intent), the IDEA is great. As you doubtless know, doctors are "state-shopping" because of desperate and sometimes berserk laws and lawsuits. There needs to be an acknowledgment on all sides that mistakes HAPPEN when you treat millions, but we can't let these clinics become a well-meant, but destitute system. I think a trust would need to be set in place to protect its funding from looting by the politicians, but also complete transparency.

Nothing here is easy, but if the clinics were as you say, funded well and properly... what could be bad about it? We're not restricting access, just partitioning it in a way that will make the lives of doctors, nurses, and insurance easier... not to mention people tired of waiting in ER lobbies. My only concerns really have nothing to do with the system you propose, just what people could do with it, but that's true of any institution. If you add basic mental health services (suicide prevention, anger management courses, addiction...whatever can be figured) that doesn't require a fleet of Psychologists... and it shouldn't. I can't IMAGINE how much money would be saved each year through that kind of routine screening that so often is just not a part of life for the section of society we're describing.

I see two major initial hurdles:

1.) Democrats will use this is a political prop: we're ghettoizing the poor.
2.) Republicans will use this a political prop: we're giving freebies to the poor.

Both would be wrong, but between that kind of noise... ouch... maybe people will be ready when we're closer to bankruptcy.
 
  • #198
nismaratwork said:
Nothing here is easy, but if the clinics were as you say, funded well and properly... what could be bad about it? We're not restricting access, just partitioning it in a way that will make the lives of doctors, nurses, and insurance easier... not to mention people tired of waiting in ER lobbies. My only concerns really have nothing to do with the system you propose, just what people could do with it, but that's true of any institution. If you add basic mental health services (suicide prevention, anger management courses, addiction...whatever can be figured) that doesn't require a fleet of Psychologists... and it shouldn't. I can't IMAGINE how much money would be saved each year through that kind of routine screening that so often is just not a part of life for the section of society we're describing.

I see a Federal (funded facilities and equipment) Health Clinic network (operated by the state with Federal tax incentives for doctors to participate) as an inevitable - yet pre-emptive move. Currently, less and less doctors want to participate in Medicaid - in spite of the current $63,750 tax incentive (only $44,000 for Medicare only) under the ARRA - do you agree? We're seeing an expansion of Medicaid and less places of service - with overflow to the most expensive point of service - the emergency room.

I don't see this as a partition. This is a way to meet the needs of the expanded Medicaid system - without forcing doctors to treat beneficiaries in their primary practices - which increases the overhead costs of the practice.

In the context of this thread - this is a way to provide affordable preventative and routine healthcare.

There would be one stipulation - no lawsuits as a result of not running exhaustive series of expensive tests - let the doctors use their skills to treat people and not practice defensive medicine.
 
  • #199
WhoWee said:
I see a Federal (funded facilities and equipment) Health Clinic network (operated by the state with Federal tax incentives for doctors to participate) as an inevitable - yet pre-emptive move. Currently, less and less doctors want to participate in Medicaid - in spite of the current $63,750 tax incentive (only $44,000 for Medicare only) under the ARRA - do you agree?

Competely.

WhoWee said:
We're seeing an expansion of Medicaid and less places of service - with overflow to the most expensive point of service - the emergency room.

Agreed as well, and well said.

WhoWee said:
I don't see this as a partition. This is a way to meet the needs of the expanded Medicaid system - without forcing doctors to treat beneficiaries in their primary practices - which increases the overhead costs of the practice.

I also agree, but how to make that clear to people who are still afraid that the G-man want to kill Nana?

WhoWee said:
In the context of this thread - this is a way to provide affordable preventative and routine healthcare.

There would be one stipulation - no lawsuits as a result of not running exhaustive series of expensive tests - let the doctors use their skills to treat people and not practice defensive medicine.

Agreed, these would be clinics of FIRST resort, not the only place to go. If you have a head injury, go to the ER, if, as you say it's the sniffles... head to this clinic.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top