[pickledpepperRN]

It is all relative. Eleven million dollars an hour: http://www.kenspace.net/2006/09/28/11-million-a-day/

If we weren't spending $200,000 a minute in an unjust war in Iraq, blowing things up to install democracy, we might have the money to invest in an energy policy - improve inner city schools, or provide adequate health coverage (absent HMOs - the pharmaceuticals - insurance companies)?
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=10573

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

It is all relative. Eleven million dollars an hour: http://www.kenspace.net/2006/09/28/11-million-a-day/

If we weren't spending $200,000 a minute in an unjust war in Iraq, blowing things up to install democracy, we might have the money to invest in an energy policy - improve inner city schools, or provide adequate health coverage (absent HMOs - the pharmaceuticals - insurance companies)?
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=10573

In a forthcoming paper for the <A href="http://www.newamerica.net/">New America Foundation economist (and sometime Nation contributor) James K. Galbraith writes, "Contrary to considerable myth, economic development in America has never been a purely private matter." Galbraith cites the Congress of 1862 and its authorization of land grant universities, homesteading, and the transcontinental railroads. And the New Deal which "laid down much of the public architectural legacy with which we live today."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=221239

Galbraith is speaking directly to your point Space. I think we ignore his wisdom at the peril of a secure and prosperous future for our country.

[HM2Viking]

Here is an idea from Mayor Bloomberg which also speaks directly to this topic:

The mayor of New York’s new antipoverty plan, which is scheduled to begin in the fall, will pay as much as $5,000 a year to poor families to help them meet specific goals like getting regular medical checkups, holding down full-time jobs and attending parent-teacher conferences.
Experience in developing countries shows that such ‘‘conditional cash transfer’’ programs are effective in combating poverty. Those who participate wind up with better education, health and life prospects than those who don’t. Such a program in Mexico -- the initial inspiration for Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan -- has had particular success in improving the health of participating children.
...
Asset limits in public assistance programs present a clear disincentive to save; undermining much of the program’s potential to move families toward economic self-sufficiency. The program’s financial incentives will be lost if every dollar a family earns is accompanied by a corresponding loss in public benefits.
Instead of limits, the city should provide incentives for families to invest the money they receive through the program in ‘‘productive assets’’ like studying for their nursing license at the City University of New York or starting a day-care service out of their homes. Families in the Mexican program who invested about a quarter of all cash transfers into a productive asset increased their standard of living by about 24 percent after six years in the program.
Finally, as this initiative expands, the mayor should consider investing a portion of the cash transfers directly into banking accounts set up for children in the program. By doing this, these children could tap into the money when they reach adulthood, allowing them to achieve economic independence as adults.

http://www.newamerica.net/publicatio...t_poverty_5524

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

I think that this was the key point of the decisional process for choosing light rail vs buses as well as the benefits of reduced air pollution and traffic congestion.

I think the gov't can only get away with WASTING 715 MILLION dollars on a 12 mile track because they don't have to compete to provide you with superior innovation at less cost.

THAT is the problem with this light rail, and it is the problem with every 'let's get the gov't to help' idea in this thread. The gov't always does more harm than good, to almost everything it touches.

You can rail against free markets all you like. Bill Gates isn't a billionaire because he invented Windows. He's a billionaire because hundreds of millions of people worldwide can afford to BUY windows.

The rich depend on a middle class to support their projects and the middle class depend on the rich to provide products. It's a relationship proven to work, and to work well.

The gov't, by consuming so much of the economy, hinders the very growth that would do more to lift the poor up to prosperity than any gov't handout could ever hope to do.

THAT is why those handouts are uncompassionate. They stand starkly in the way of prosperity for the poor. Anti-poverty programs are nothing more than anti-poor-people programs. Helping someone merely to subsist in poverty is uncompassionate.

We could do so much more, if only we could get the gov't out of the way.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Spidey's mom]

My point is not that it is a bad idea to build a light rail system but that it is a bad idea to build it when we have other more important responsibilities.

The money should have gone to infrastructure. People can't complain about the bridge collapsing when money to fix it was spent on something that could have waited.

Good Lord there is so much of our hard earned tax money going to PORK and instead of cutting the funding of stuff that is PORK, we are asked to fork over more money to the government.

Their coffers are overflowing with money as I type.

Get thee on a budget Uncle Sam!

steph

[HM2Viking]

Light rail is really off topic except to the original point that affordable public transportation helps people get to work. If you want to debate the merits of light rail take that over to the break room.

One thing I have noticed is that there is a real tendency to take this thread off topic rather than offering or discussing pragmatic policy options.

Since the single greatest risk factor for poor health is poverty I think that our time would be better spent discussing ways to reduce that problem. Part of the solution for poverty is social inclusion which means we have to talk about ways to help people earn a piece of the pie.

Practical solutions for any problem require dialogue. Big picture societal problems need to be worked on through the political process which means the people through their elected representatives are going to make decisions and set up programs to address issues. Sometimes the solution is in the private sector and sometimes it will be through government.

I think that you have deliberately ignored every constructive suggestion and approach to the problem and/or sidetracked the discussion with an anti-government diatribe.

I don't think that anyone is arguing for handouts here. The consistent question posed has been "How can we help people develop the skills and incentive needed to move out of poverty?"

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Light rail is really off topic except to the original point that affordable public transportation helps people get to work. If you want to debate the merits of light rail take that over to the break room.

One thing I hsvr noticed is that there is a real tendency to take this thread off topic rather than offering or discussing pragmatic policy options.

Since the single greatest risk factor for poor health is poverty I think that our time would be better spent discussing ways to reduce that problem. Part of the solution for poverty is social inclusion which means we have to talk about ways to help people earn a piece of the pie.

Practical solutions for any problem require dialogue. Big picture societal problems need to be worked on through the political process which means the people through their elected representatives are going to make decisions and set up programs to address issues. Sometimes the solution is in the private sector and sometimes it will be through government.

I think that you have deliberately ignored every constructive suggestion and approach to the problem and/or sidetracked the discussion with an anti-government diatribe.

I don't think that anyone is arguing for handouts here. The consistent question posed has been "How can we help people develop the skills and incentive needed to move out of poverty?"

Are you talking to me or Tim?

Tim has offered more detailed suggestions. I did offer general ideas by linking Star Parker's website. Lazy I guess . . .

The light rail question only came up with regards to government waste - as an example. The Break Room is not the place for that anyway.



steph

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Light rail is really off topic except to the original point that affordable public transportation helps people get to work. If you want to debate the merits of light rail take that over to the break room.

I think the light rail project in MINN is perfectly ON topic. It's a symbol, and a potent one.

You claim that the program is an anti-poverty program because it aids transportation, which is empowering.

I might agree that transportation is empowering.

however. . .

Who got more prosperous here? The poor? Or, gov't contractors that got to spend 715 MILLION dollars of your money to build a 12 mile track? Once again, it's not corporations vs gov't. No. It's corporations AND gov't vs. you. And you, be you poor or not - you are the losers.

The city KNEW about the I35W bridge for the whole time this light rail was being conceived and built. Why did nobody in local gov't think, if they could design a better and cheaper mousetrap for this transit system, then they could afford to ALSO fix or replace that bridge? Why not? Because, we've ceded our lives and power to the Federal monster of gov't. It's not my job; Uncle Daddy will do it.

But of course, the problem with the bridge is evil Republicans that don't want to appropriate ever more of the economy to the gov't. How about they first spend some of what THEY ALREADY HAVE better? I just don't think that it's too much to ask that the gov't be frugal with MY money. (Point of fact, they WERE going to be more frugal, although that's highly relative: they had only planned, in 1997, on spending 400 MILLION dollars for a 12 mile track. Cost overruns made it cost 715 MILLION).

There is another reason it failed to dawn on local officials to be a better steward of your money. They have no need to consider the best, most practical, and most cost effective stategies of providing service to citizens; they are a monopoly.

It amazes me that those that can clearly see the anti-free market dangers of monopolies in the private sector don't recognize that the SAME EXACT DANGERS are inherent in the gov't being a monopoly.

Waste, reduced efficiency, and disdain for their clients are hallmarks of monopolies. THAT is your gov't in action. Of COURSE private industry could do things better.

When the gov't is an all-consuming monster, however, everything else is crowded out. Arwen, earlier in this thread, argued that since people don't give privately to charity like they should, maybe the gov't SHOULD get involved. Hello? IF THE GOV'T WASN'T TAKING ONE THIRD OF AMERICAN SALARIES, maybe people would get more involved with charity.

The gov't is a monster. It inherently leads to tryanny. It is not the solution, but the progenitor of problems. Going on an 'anti-gov't rant' in this thread is exactly on point. You haven't advocated advancing the condition of the poor nearly so much as you have advocated advancing the power of gov't.

I'm not anti-poor. I think this is a rich nation. We SHOULD make sure there are good safety nets. Safety nets though, are not a standard of living. In addition, safety nets should not involve the encroaching role of gov't in the lives of the masses.

The problem with these programs is that first off, they do not solve the poverty problem, and 2nd, the goal of these programs are more in line with a progressive idea of an interventionist gov't than they are truly anti-poverty in nature. MY problem with these programs is that they are uncompassionate to the very people they purport to help.

I am amazed that the left can get so up in arms about wiretapping and the intrusion that entails in the private lives of citizens, but not understand that confiscatory policies that steal the funds from citizens that would keep the middle class from 'eroding' isn't the SAME kind of gov't intrusion.

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

I think that you have deliberately ignored every constructive suggestion and approach to the problem and/or sidetracked the discussion with anti-government diatribes.

I don't think that anyone is arguing for handouts here. The consistent question posed has been "How can we help people develop the skills and incentives needed to move out of poverty?"

Ignoring the issues doesn't make them go away:

Which path leads to real value for society?

A. 35-40 hours per week at Walmart. (Which is almost impossible because most Walmarts won't allow anything over 32 hours /week.) (Earning maybe 22,000/year.) Lifetime eligibility for EITC, reduced price lunches, housing vouchers etc

B. 20 hours per week working at a job (ideally related to the technical field being trained for). 20 hours per week in school for 2 years picking up technical skills. (RN, LPN, Mechanic Machinist etc.) Earns a living wage after 2 years (40-45,000/year). Never uses any form of direct or indirect public assistance ever again.

IMHO teaching people real job skills leads to increased self esteem leads to increased productivity leads to increased income and leads to decreased dependence.

The other part of this is that his/her children see mom/dad working at a job earning a good living and they get the message that staying in school pays off, if you work hard in school you will get a good job and be valued by society. Progressives are trying to help people through the barriers to achievement (health, education or whatever) but are not trying to guarantee equality of outcome just equality of opportunity.

What is the best predictor of being a middle class adult? Having middle class parents.

From The Nation:
With the collapse of the 35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty's career took a big hit. Pawlenty, currently chair of the National Governors Association, has built a career on a no-tax-increase pledge, and he's risen in the ranks of national Republicans because of it. Among other feathers in his cap, he twice vetoed a gas-tax increase that would have provided money to the Department of Transportation, whose purview includes bridge inspection and repair.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/rubenstein

[Spidey's mom]

From The Nation:
With the collapse of the 35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty's career took a big hit. Pawlenty, currently chair of the National Governors Association, has built a career on a no-tax-increase pledge, and he's risen in the ranks of national Republicans because of it. Among other feathers in his cap, he twice vetoed a gas-tax increase that would have provided money to the Department of Transportation, whose purview includes bridge inspection and repair.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/rubenstein[/quote]


And thank goodness he did. I agree with him.

Terry Hunt, the Associated Press, "Mr. President, the former chairman of House transportation committee said there is about 500 bridges around the country like the one that collapsed in Minneapolis. They now have other transportation committee members who are recommending an increase in federal gas taxes to pay for repairs. Would you be willing to go along with an increase in gasoline taxes of 5 cents a gallon or more?"

PRESIDENT BUSH: It's an interesting question about how Congress spends and prioritizes highway money. My suggestion would be that they revisit the process by which they spend gasoline money in the first place. The public works committee is the largest committee, or one of the largest committees in the House of Representatives. The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that committee gets to set his or her own priority first, and then whatever is left over is sent to a spending formula. That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. So before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities. And if bridges are a priority, let's make sure we set that priority first and foremost before we raise taxes.