Why defend the war on poverty?

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 38
#31
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@Alec
it's one thing to say there are alternatives to the government out there. but that's not your original argument. your argument is that the government helping them makes them worse off. that can't be said for everyone who gets help. 
Topic's author
#32
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@linate
that can't be said for everyone who gets help. 
I understand, but for the vast majority of Americans, the war on poverty keeps them poor.  It's in the chart.  Maybe the poverty rate flattens out at around .5% if the war never existed, but .5% of the population being poor is a whole lot better than 10% being poor.  Because of this, we should modify the war on poverty to eliminate food stamps since they keep the vast majority of the low income population staying low income.

#33
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@Alec
also what's the big deal if some people choose to not get ahead as much as they can when they are in such a bad situation? if all you get if free food and healthcare, you get no material wealth. very little welfare is about material wealth. food stamps these days are limited in time with work requirements. healthcare is so exoribantly expensive, it may make little sense to try to pay for it yourself. for one reason or another, people are in a bad situation if they are around the poverty line. if they choose to stay that way they may have a decent reason, and it's their choice. why make a fuss about it? 

again, i know there are non government alternatives. but you are talking about this as if they would be better off if we didn't help them. as if they didn't realize they could get ahead themselves or something
Topic's author
#34
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@linate
also what's the big deal if some people choose to not get ahead as much as they can when they are in such a bad situation?
It's fine to not get ahead.  It's not fine to use up other people's resources without their consent because of a refusal to get ahead.

 if all you get if free food and healthcare, you get no material wealth
The low income people should pay for this themselves.  If they can't afford it, they get a better job.

food stamps these days are limited in time with work requirements. healthcare is so exoribantly expensive
Low income people are on food stamps because they don't know where they can get a better job.  


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/136MFNyPCnOs50_QltxPvkBpS2OydnNfG7WZYb21qTrM/edit#gid=320988619 is a list of better jobs for low income people.  None of them require a bachlor's degree, to the best of my knowledge, none of them require any college degree and they all pay very well.

 it may make little sense to try to pay for it yourself
Every other adult for the most part pays for the food themselves.  Why can't they?

if they choose to stay that way they may have a decent reason
They might have a decent reason, such as they don't know how to get a better job.  If that's the case, then they just get shown the list above to get out of poverty.  But there are moochers to the system, and they got to start contributing to society just like the rest of us in order to get paid.  If you don't help society, then society really shouldn't be obliged to help you.

and it's their choice. why make a fuss about it? 
Because I don't want to pay for someone else's choice.

but you are talking about this as if they would be better off if we didn't help them. as if they didn't realize they could get ahead themselves or something
If they don't realize how they can get ahead, then the list would get shown to them so they learn how to get ahead on their own.  I honestly think that a lot of them have stopped trying because they feel trapped in welfare.  Eliminating food stamps and replacing it with the plan described in the link can help them contribute to the society that has contributed to their well being.
#35
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@Alec
a lot of your arguments are about why people on welfare should just pull themselves up from their bootstraps. the problem is that your original argument is that they would be better off if we didn't help them. you are changing the goal post. 

let's face it. a lot of low wage people are just stupid. a lot of the jobs u mentioned are for smart people. somebody's gotta work low wage jobs, and it's often just stupid people who get stuck with it. i realize they aren't the severely disabled, but they are lacking in ability. not assisting them doesn't help them more, your original argument. 

and why should someone work two full time jobs to pay for their healthcare? healthcare should be affordable for anyone who works full time, at least. it's out of reach to many. so why complain if people choose to forgo material wealth for help with healthcare? it's something they should get help with, and they are sacrificing too, so. 
Topic's author
#36
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@linate
a lot of your arguments are about why people on welfare should just pull themselves up from their bootstraps
I don't think I said it exactly like this.  My claim is that the war on poverty has been a counterproductive failure so ending it would reduce poverty drastically.  People who are poor should pull themselves out of poverty, but not with the bootstraps.

a lot of low wage people are just stupid. a lot of the jobs u mentioned are for smart people.
Low wage people aren't that stupid.  I met this guy who was pretty dumb, but he was making a good salary because the job he had was good.  Businesses don't care about how smart you are as much as people would think.  They want labor to get the work done and they don't care too much if the person is smart as long as they get the work done.

somebody's gotta work low wage jobs,
Not really.  McDonalds can automate and that would force the people who work there to find better jobs that they can work.  As POTUS, if they don't know where to look, I can show them a sheet of better jobs and I'd probably post it online or show it to people so they can get themselves out of poverty.

 i realize they aren't the severely disabled, but they are lacking in ability.
If they don't know how to do the jobs, they learn how to do them.  Its much easier, cheaper, and better than 4 years of college.

not assisting them doesn't help them more, your original argument. 
They need help, but it shouldn't be welfare because it keep them poor and unmotivated to find something better for them.  
#37
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@Alec
how would you feel if the government teamed up with private charity, gave money to the charity to help people? at first i was against the idea, cause for a lot of problems, it shouldn't be a charity's problem. like i dont think it's the problem of charity to make sure healthcare is affordable. but, i do see your point that a charity isn't tied up with beurocracy and can direct people in a smarter way. i may be open to the government/charity team up for practical purposes if anything. 
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,924
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@linate
A big problem with charity is that the bulk of it used to come from rich Americans. Crony America embraced globalism with the blessings of paid politicians and allowed foreign investors to gobble up a good chunk of American Capital. Hedgefund manager icons Soros and Paul Singer purchased both political parties and downsized local American industry and exported the wealth outside of America's borders. That leaves a lot of wealth in the hands of people who have no sense of attachment to America, and won't donate locally like Rockefeller, Ford, or Carnegie. 

One unintended (or intended, who cares) effect from policies pursuing America first nativism is that the wealth and capital and jobs will inevitably slowly transfer back to American hands, and charity money will return to early 1900 levels when America cared for its own.