Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
How Can Government Eliminate Poverty? How Can Government Eliminate Poverty?

01-25-2017 , 10:46 PM
Simple question. I don't think it can. A more realistic goal, how can government reduce poverty to an acceptable level? What is an acceptable level? I will state that 6% of the population below the poverty line is acceptable.

USA Census Bureau Poverty Tables
01-25-2017 , 11:02 PM
Classic. That's all I got for now.
01-26-2017 , 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adios
Silly question. It obviously can't. Poverty is part of the human condition.
FYP

/thread

victorylap.jpg in another round div tag.
01-26-2017 , 01:11 AM
Populate with new people who have the interest of the majority and everything good, including more equitable, meritocratic scales of inequality will naturally emerge.

So basically a 4 step process.

1) Dissolve
2) Repopulate with democratic socialists
3) Disassociate from private, concentrated power
4) Place reasonable constraints on private power, principally through a legal dismantling of the corporation construct.

Once the fundamental barriers are gone there wouldn't be much standing in the way of a more equitable allocation of resources.

The point of the government, as it exists now, is to keep decisions on the allocation of resources restricted to a small, self interested group of people. So it would take radical change to make government reverse course and substantially reduce poverty.
01-26-2017 , 01:15 AM
Impossible discussion without an open and honest debate on the role of government.
01-26-2017 , 02:32 AM
It wouldn't be easy in this country given the status quo, but just like trumps unconstitutional business dealings, just because fixing it is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it.
01-26-2017 , 02:58 AM
Nixon was in favor of a guaranteed annual income at first, just cutting a gov't check to the poorest people. Which has a lot of advantages over various ridiculous social programs.
01-26-2017 , 03:00 AM
Force people to bare the true cost of their children, if not up front in cash then via a credit system based on their expected life trajectory. Then you can be a lot more generous with the duds that slip through the cracks knowing it won't create a cycle of dependency.
01-26-2017 , 05:16 AM
You're kinda hardass for a Canadian, Abba. I like that.
01-26-2017 , 06:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavesofliberty
Impossible discussion without an open and honest debate on the role of government.
The decision has been made about the role of government in the USA basically tbh. Obviously the decision is to help the poor.
01-26-2017 , 06:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuces McKracken
Populate with new people who have the interest of the majority and everything good, including more equitable, meritocratic scales of inequality will naturally emerge.

So basically a 4 step process.

1) Dissolve
2) Repopulate with democratic socialists
3) Disassociate from private, concentrated power
4) Place reasonable constraints on private power, principally through a legal dismantling of the corporation construct.

Once the fundamental barriers are gone there wouldn't be much standing in the way of a more equitable allocation of resources.

The point of the government, as it exists now, is to keep decisions on the allocation of resources restricted to a small, self interested group of people. So it would take radical change to make government reverse course and substantially reduce poverty.
World Poverty Rates by Country

Is deregulation part of item 3? The USA basically has 3 and 4 at least to some degree. Perhaps look at countries where the poverty rate is very low. The USA poverty rate is about 13% now IIRC.

Last edited by adios; 01-26-2017 at 06:35 AM.
01-26-2017 , 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib
It wouldn't be easy in this country given the status quo, but just like trumps unconstitutional business dealings, just because fixing it is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it.
Absolutely, the question is how to at least lower the poverty rate.
01-26-2017 , 06:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba
Force people to bare the true cost of their children, if not up front in cash then via a credit system based on their expected life trajectory. Then you can be a lot more generous with the duds that slip through the cracks knowing it won't create a cycle of dependency.
A lot more government intervention which is probably oppressive actually.

Surprising that improving educational outcomes and increasing economic growth haven't been mentioned.
Interesting Article on Poverty in the USA

Last edited by adios; 01-26-2017 at 07:00 AM.
01-26-2017 , 06:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kioshk
Nixon was in favor of a guaranteed annual income at first, just cutting a gov't check to the poorest people. Which has a lot of advantages over various ridiculous social programs.
This is an idea Milton Friedman had too. Basically it amounts to is a negative income tax. The problem is that many people that don't get a check resent those that do in my view.

Last edited by adios; 01-26-2017 at 07:00 AM.
01-26-2017 , 07:19 AM
1. Remove the awful welfare system that keeps people trapped.

2. Remove burdensome regulations and allow the market to operate efficiently.
01-26-2017 , 09:28 AM
These kinds of questions are funny because the assumption behind them is the US is the only country in existence. Once you start looking at other countries, their poverty rates, and how oppressive or free they are vs the US, then a lot of the arguments fall away.
01-26-2017 , 09:34 AM
Huehue, I'm not sure what that means. What exactly are you advocating about the US gov't's handling of poverty?
01-26-2017 , 09:52 AM
I'm saying this idea that poverty rates are somehow intractable are belayed by the fact that other countries with similar GDP have much lower rates, higher freedom ratings, higher happiness, etc. Once the scope of what's possible is opened a lot of the oppression/vs helping the poor or other arguments makes much less sense and is, rightly, seen as a narrowly defined American justification for the status quo.
01-26-2017 , 09:55 AM
So you want the US gov't to give our poor people a lot more money then.
01-26-2017 , 10:08 AM
pay poors not to reproduce
01-26-2017 , 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kioshk
So you want the US gov't to give our poor people a lot more money then.
The definition of poverty is the lack of money.
01-26-2017 , 10:20 AM
ok, just getting that straight there.

You want to redistribute wealth.
01-26-2017 , 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kioshk
ok, just getting that straight there.

You want to redistribute wealth.
Wealth is constantly being redistributed, it's being distributed right now via the government run economic system and enforced by the courts.
01-26-2017 , 10:48 AM
Yeah, but it's about to be redistributed from mine and kioshk's wallets into Donald trump's wallet, which seems like the wrong direction for redistribution to flow
01-26-2017 , 10:57 AM
Build a wall and keep new poor people from coming in. The existing poor people will eventually die off.

      
m