It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Can't American Socialists Come up with a Plan to End Poverty

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

It also ignores the fact that if they did indeed end poverty, they would also be out of a job ...




posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: xuenchen






*children under 18:
*get savings bonds (every 2 weeks) until 18, then a check.
*bonds held in Treasury safekeeping account.
*available at 18.


This is where it would break down - the Funds would utimatly be raided by the Govt to balance the books




1. Eliminate all Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA medical, and most (or all) welfare.


WHat about all those currently on some of these benefits, do they pay for all medical bills out of their $25,000? It'll be gone in a few days, judging by the cost of Healthcare in the US






I was crunching some numbers and brainstorming a bit.. and want to pass this on.

Linky

It may be right out to lunch, but it may be right.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I believe we should have a social safety net for the following people.

1. The severely ill (including the mentally ill who are homeless).
2. The elderly
3. Children.


A safety net should be for people who cannot take care of themselves for whatever reason. And the money is there for it. If we can find money for multi billion dollar fighter jets that only marginally work, we should have money for this.


That being said, the reason the United States was such a strong country, is because people used to innovate out of necessity. IE if you didn't find a way to survive, you didn't. The human spirit needs challenges to grow and prosper. However, at the time this was going strongest, we weren't a plutocracy and the playing field was more level. Now its hard to start with nothing and make something. Everything tends to favor the one percent and keep the rest of us living paycheck to paycheck with no upward mobility.

I would say, render help to those who really need it and cant help themselves, but dont create an across the board social safety net, RESTORE UPWARD MOBILITY. Create business grants, incentives to go to college in engineering and the sciences, etc. We need to restore our economic strength, not just throw money at poverty.
edit on 17-1-2016 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: openminded2011

Upward mobility?, this is fine for some. But what about people who are happy where they are or good at what they do in the position they occupy presently?.

For most people any real upward mobility is a myth anyway as there really is no place to go in the end other than old age and the grave. I have never seen anyone avoid this reality.

A different way of thinking and doing business is in order, not taking meaningless things and tacking some contrived meaning to them.

I would be happy doing a job that I am good at or even enjoy doing without the pressure of others expecting me to want more for myself for enough resources to get by right now.

Advancement frequently results in people being promoted to jobs they are not as good at as the job they were promoted from and are less content with.

I have experienced this myself in my life, being kept at a level that I was overqualified for simply for the reasons of keeping from having to pay me the increased wages that are supposedly expected when one is promoted, and being promoted out of a job I enjoyed.

The pay from a job does not determine your living situation so much as what one does with that pay.

Inflows are somewhat beyond one's control. Outflows are completely within our power to control.

Living within one's means amounts to treading water and getting nowhere, while having the most costly things like medical care and shelter, food, water, transportation and other actual necessities controlled somehow to keep them affordable would make things easier, living below one's means is still necessary to move ahead.

To live below one's means allows for the building of real wealth, living within one's means simply means we need the help of the bank to get a loan to get some things.

But once again, there really isn't any place to go in the end.

We live like we are never going to die and in the end we never really lived.

That Dalai Llama guy got pretty close explaining what he saw once:

“Man surprised me most about humanity. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money.
Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.”

As they say, You Can't Take It With You, so there must be more to this life somewhere that is not based on illogic and wishful thinking.

Or maybe our entire lives are an exercise in denial and distraction from the inevitable.

I have no idea what it is I speak of.....



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: openminded2011

Upward mobility?, this is fine for some. But what about people who are happy where they are or good at what they do in the position they occupy presently?.

For most people any real upward mobility is a myth anyway as there really is no place to go in the end other than old age and the grave. I have never seen anyone avoid this reality.

A different way of thinking and doing business is in order, not taking meaningless things and tacking some contrived meaning to them.

I would be happy doing a job that I am good at or even enjoy doing without the pressure of others expecting me to want more for myself for enough resources to get by right now.

Advancement frequently results in people being promoted to jobs they are not as good at as the job they were promoted from and are less content with.

I have experienced this myself in my life, being kept at a level that I was overqualified for simply for the reasons of keeping from having to pay me the increased wages that are supposedly expected when one is promoted, and being promoted out of a job I enjoyed.

The pay from a job does not determine your living situation so much as what one does with that pay.

Inflows are somewhat beyond one's control. Outflows are completely within our power to control.

Living within one's means amounts to treading water and getting nowhere, while having the most costly things like medical care and shelter, food, water, transportation and other actual necessities controlled somehow to keep them affordable would make things easier, living below one's means is still necessary to move ahead.

To live below one's means allows for the building of real wealth, living within one's means simply means we need the help of the bank to get a loan to get some things.

But once again, there really isn't any place to go in the end.

We live like we are never going to die and in the end we never really lived.

That Dalai Llama guy got pretty close explaining what he saw once:

“Man surprised me most about humanity. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money.
Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.”

As they say, You Can't Take It With You, so there must be more to this life somewhere that is not based on illogic and wishful thinking.

Or maybe our entire lives are an exercise in denial and distraction from the inevitable.

I have no idea what it is I speak of.....


What I was really talking about, is not just accumulating more and more materially, I am talking about the ability to escape poverty, an option which way too many people currently do not have in our society. They lack the means to improve their income or education, and as a result are wage slaves. It's FINE if you are lucky enough to be in a niche where you are happy with what you have or what you are doing. But what about the people who barely make it and have no current way to escape that? We need to give these people the chance to improve their lives.
edit on 17-1-2016 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Something else that ought to be considered is that we need to change our measure of poverty.

Shortly after this current administration took over, the poverty line was changed from a hard income line, and actual objective measure, to a percentage. So as things stand, a certain percentage of the population will always be in poverty no matter how much they have or make.
edit on 17-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm confused on number two....

Are you stating that 300 million people should receive $25,000 yearly and that adds up to 2.1 trillion dollars?

"The last power ball worth 1.5 billion" if there was only one winner, that one winner could of given the population of the USA 1 million each and would still have change, everyone would become millionaires. The problem with that happening, is many would stop working. When that happens, the economy would crash.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Bone75

It's a perpetual motion machine.


Its willful ignorance. Notice how no one has even addressed the point?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: openminded2011

Somewhere, something, somehow has to change. The current arrangement does not allow for more equal anything and probably can't without a big paradigm shift which even those who are not wealthy probably wouldn't agree with.

An example is how efforts which grant people and groups rights infringe on the rights of others. I myself don't have much of an opinion on gay marriage, for example, but the gay marriage issue is important to some because they're gay and important to others because they consider it an abomination to be gay.

To change the distribution of wealth (or rights) there must be a redistribution of wealth (or rights) across the board, for everyone.

Many are trapped in poverty because their options for escaping from poverty are being reduced all the time by rising prices and stagnant wages and just simple greed. I noticed that every year from the time I started working that I had to work harder to get by and keep what I had.

I got tired of fighting harder every year and realized that half of what I had I didn't need anyway.

If everyone were secure in being able to attain what they NEEDED, which would not bode well for profits in some industries, the rest of the industries in the country would probably do just fine.

Some things just cannot be held as private because they belong to everybody, at least they did in the past.

Really though, even poverty stricken people can usually get what they need to survive and pretty much thrive.

Everybody can't live like the 0.001% like some people think they should.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Famouszor
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm confused on number two....

Are you stating that 300 million people should receive $25,000 yearly and that adds up to 2.1 trillion dollars?

"The last power ball worth 1.5 billion" if there was only one winner, that one winner could of given the population of the USA 1 million each and would still have change, everyone would become millionaires. The problem with that happening, is many would stop working. When that happens, the economy would crash.


People aren't very good at math around here.

For starters, 2.1T / 300M = 7K... not 25K

As for your Powerball analogy, one winner would have had enough money to give 1,500 people a million dollars... or everyone in the US roughly 5 bucks.


edit on 17-1-2016 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Not on topic, but if I won the lottery I would pay off a bunch of people's mortgages and see if they try to deny me couch surfing privileges then. They might still.....

They would probably refinance to buy all kinds of frivolous and un-needed crap and get right back into the same rut within a year or so.

The math problem here in the U.S. is pretty obvious. People don't consider the future expenses associated with purchases, like cars and the big tires on the newer ones that cost $1000 to replace all four, or maintenance after the warranty runs out. Sometimes they even forget to factor in insurance and registration and licensing costs.

It's the same with anything else.




edit on 17-1-2016 by MyHappyDogShiner because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Not trying to answer the question of the OP so much, but making an observation.

Farmers are more important than doctors if one never gets sick and needs medical attention.

Why is it so difficult for farmers to be successful, and a given, for the most part, that doctors will be?.

These types of comparisons can be made everywhere, and it has little to do with anything but having wealth from family ties or good credit. The possibility of struggling past barriers that are put in place by governments and other entities like banks and the legal system makes it harder to get past a certain point.

And just when you start making headway the taxman cometh.......



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Most welfare recipients collect around $60k per year in benefits. The $25k would just anger those receiving it now. For those that earn a living would need to earn over $100k to have comparable level of benefits.

Can we solve the poverty problem?..NO! It has become a lifestyle with it's own lobbying group (the Democratic Party) that uses poverty as a voting base.

There is the promise of a "$15 living wage" which they have no chance of getting. Everyone knows it's a hollow promise but the people demonstrating for it. Oddly enough, the places they picket are the companies that hire the most people at the poverty level (entry level).

Neither party wants a solution to poverty because of the special interest groups who keep the politicians in office. The Democrats what more people in their major voting base. There are the lucky ones who pay union due which a portion goes to the DNC. The Republicans want cheap labor for their donors.

Both parties come up with programs like Head Start and occupational training which do little overall. All of it is camouflage for doing nothing. Many think that job programs to make $20k per year when they are drawing $60k in benes on welfare is an insult.

The real reason for welfare is one of two things. The first is drug dependency and the second is mental illness. The government does very little here too.

The victims of poverty are the children born into the mess created by their parents. They have no positive example to give them a chance to break out of the conditions in which they live. They can't buy food but they have a $300 pair of Air Jordan tennis shoes. They become hungry and can't figure out why..."IT'S THE MAN".



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: buddah6




The real reason for welfare is one of two things. The first is drug dependency and the second is mental illness. The government does very little here too.



That's a mighty narrow minded view of what you think lands people in a position to need help.

Another thing, if you were to go to the Middle East or Africa ( I have been to both), it would become rather obvious that even those considered poverty stricken here live like kings in comparison, they aren't drug addicts and probably not mentally ill either for the most part.

Poverty does cause many to turn to drugs to kill the pain of being treated like garbage by those who mistakenly look at themselves as successful, when in actuality they are deeply in debt and full of themselves, and being treated the way they are by the narcissistic pricks on the street, it sometimes drives them crazy.

People are suck #ing animals.

Get out much?.
edit on 17-1-2016 by MyHappyDogShiner because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2016 by MyHappyDogShiner because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

There are other reasons to receive public assistance but I was pointing out the two major things for somebody to be on welfare chronically.

I grew up in Appalachia where people are poor by government intervention. There is little drug dependency but there is a good number that suffer from depression from the loss of their livelihood.

However, there's many who game the system. I have never seen a child from the coal fields of Kentucky with $300 Air Jordans and leather Raiders jackets like here in Cincinnati.

It may be narrow minded but it doesn't make it less valid.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
And most of those plans are losing money like water in a sieve.

A lot of those companies are not renewing their contracts with the States.

Healthcare should not be a commodity or a business enterprise, As long as you have companies that are drawing a profit from healthcare services provided, it is going to be a lose lose situation for everyone.

The ACA is totally unsustainable.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Capitalism is not supposed to fix poverty.

It is supposed to help those who are willing to work hard and take some RESPONSIBILITY for themselves.

"Capitalism. God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor."
-- Ron Swanson



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I think that what a lot of threads and ideas like this are forgetting is that poverty is relative--take our poverty line for a family of two adults and two children: $23,000, give or take.

In many countries around the world, $23,000 for the same family would make them wealthy individuals. So, obviously, poverty is relative, but it also relates to the cost of living of that country/area as well.

If the baseline level of the average household income rose in the United States (assuming it would) if everyone got "paid" (given) a minimum income, the cost of living would most likely rise as well, bringing those who choose/have to live off of the $25K minimum right back into the poverty level, and nothing has been solved.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   


Why Can't American Socialists Come up with a Plan to End Poverty


Simple answer: because socialism is a boogy man in America. Someone could come up with a plan of action that would propel the entire world into a grand space utopia, and it would never get off the ground, because those who currently have power don't want to give any of it away, and those who currently own more things than everyone else don't want to share.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Because we have greedy crony capitalism in place. Pretty obvious to me.




top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join