Poverty to Prosperity......

Published

Thirty-seven million Americans live below the official poverty line. Millions more struggle each month to pay for basic necessities, or run out of savings when they lose their jobs or face health emergencies. Poverty imposes enormous costs on society. The lost potential of children raised in poor households, the lower productivity and earnings of poor adults, the poor health, increased crime, and broken neighborhoods all hurt our nation. Persistent childhood poverty is estimated to cost our nation $500 billion each year, or about four percent of the nation's gross domestic product. In a world of increasing global competition, we cannot afford to squander these human resources.

...

1. Raise and index the minimum wage to half the average hourly wage. At $5.15, the federal minimum wage is at its lowest level in real terms since 1956. The federal minimum wage was once 50 percent of the average wage but is now 30 percent of that wage. Congress should restore the minimum wage to 50 percent of the average wage, about $8.40 an hour in 2006. Doing so would help nearly 5 million poor workers and nearly 10 million other low-income workers.

2. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. As an earnings supplement for low-income working families, the EITC raises incomes and helps families build assets. The Child Tax Credit provides a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child, but provides no help to the poorest families. We recommend tripling the EITC for childless workers and expanding help to larger working families. We recommend making the Child Tax Credit available to all low- and moderate-income families. Doing so would move as many as 5 million people out of poverty.

3. Promote unionization by enacting the Employee Free Choice Act. The Employee Free Choice Act would require employers to recognize a union after a majority of workers signs cards authorizing union representation and establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights. The increased union representation made possible by the Act would lead to better jobs and less poverty for American workers.

4. Guarantee child care assistance to low-income families and promote early education for all. We propose that the federal and state governments guarantee child care help to families with incomes below about $40,000 a year, with expanded tax help to higher-earning families. At the same time, states should be encouraged to improve the quality of early education and broaden access for all children. Our child care expansion would raise employment among low-income parents and help nearly 3 million parents and children escape poverty.

5. Create 2 million new "opportunity" housing vouchers, and promote equitable development in and around central cities.

6. Connect disadvantaged and disconnected youth with school and work.

7. Simplify and expand Pell Grants and make higher education accessible to residents of each state.

8. Help former prisoners find stable employment and reintegrate into their communities.

9. Ensure equity for low-wage workers in the Unemployment Insurance system.

10. Modernize means-tested benefits programs to develop a coordinated system that helps workers and families. A well-functioning safety net should help people get into or return to work and ensure a decent level of living for those who cannot work or are temporarily between jobs. Our current system fails to do so. We recommend that governments at all levels simplify and improve benefits access for working families and improve services to individuals with disabilities. The Food Stamp Program should be strengthened to improve benefits, eligibility, and access. And the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program should be reformed to shift its focus from cutting caseloads to helping needy families find sustainable employment.

11. Reduce the high costs of being poor and increase access to financial services.

12. Expand and simplify the Saver's Credit to encourage saving for education, homeownership, and retirement.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_report.html

Specializes in Critical Care.
Addressing persistent childhood poverty is not charity. From an economic analysis alone it makes sense to intervene and help these children and their families develop the skills that they need to achieve and succeed in our society. But from a values standpoint it is more important to do this because it is the right thing to do. Which future has the greatest benefit to society?

Option A

A parent who takes a job punching a register at a store because any job is better than no job (who qulaifies for EITC, food stamps, section 8 reduced school lunches, child care assistance)

Option B

A parent who has real job skills that allows her to work at a job that earns a real living wage and doesn't need or any of these programs?

Children who grow up in option B are much less likely to become parents who use option A. We have to think beyond our own parochial narrow interests and think about what kind of future we are building.

Encouraging the subsistance of children born into proverty in such a way as to maintain poverty only encourages more poverty. It allows for the easy procreation of such children, but doesn't allow for an avenue for the children we are encouraging, by policy, to escape poverty.

The great society is a failure, not because enough money wasn't pumped into it. Trillions of dollars and 40 yrs later, it's a failure because it did little more than encourage subsistance in poverty.

This is the message we've sent: "Here's your check, now stay out of our economy, and our society." I just don't find that to be compassionate.

Throwing a few bucks at a person might expiate some amount of guilt, but it fixes nothing. Personally, I would favor helping someone out of poverty rather than patting my back for making poverty more tolerable.

Giving somebody ANYTHING without teaching them how to get it for themselves is - and always will be - a short term bandaid. It's not compassionate, to be sure.

Ultimately, the problem with the Great Society is that it starts with the assumption that people shouldn't be responsible for themselves. That is a dreadful attack on the internal fortitude to pull oneself up out of poverty. "Don't worry yourselves: you aren't responsible and Uncle Daddy will be there for you." That is a recipe FOR poverty; not a pathway out of it.

~faith,

Timothy.

Specializes in Critical Care.

I read this article recently, on point - sort of.

It was complaining about the current generation of luxury laden, unappreciative brats.

The article had the novel idea that it's Mr. Rogers' fault.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118358476840657463.html

After all, we've spent their entire youths telling this generation how special they are. "You're special". No wonder none of them think the rules apply to them. Why should that be the case, they're 'special'.

The author went on to state that maybe, instead of spending all our time telling today's youth how special they are, maybe we should have spent some time telling them there's lots of room for improvement!

The same can be said about our poverty issues. We've spent 40 yrs telling the poor how it's not their fault. Maybe we should have been spending some time telling them that they - and only they - can pull themselves up out of poverty.

The gov't can't do that, for anybody. Prosperity is a state of mind.

~faith,

Timothy.

Specializes in Med-Surg.
easy.

the constitution limits the federal gov't to a few enumerated powers. i would limit the role of the federal gov't to those powers, and only those powers:

article 1, section 8 of the united states constitution:

the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the united states; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the united states;

to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the united states, or in any department or officer thereof.

that's it.

hint: charity and gov't restricted healthcare do not appear on this list.

our constitution and declaration of independence declare to the heavens that our rights belong to individual citizens, and not the gov't. indeed, more than that, those documents affirm that they are rights granted to the individual, not from gov't, but by heaven itself! the bill of rights is just a start of the limitations placed upon gov't. they are limited to only operate narrowly within the confines of the above enumerated powers. why? to preserve your rights.

i believe the general welfare of the united states is very dependent on its citizens being healthy and fed.

"do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." ( matthew 6:19-21)

"you lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." ( mark 10:21)

"be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions." ( luke 12:15)

"the land of a rich man produced abundantly. and he thought to himself, 'what should i do, for i have no place to store my crops?' then he said, ' i will do this: i will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there i will store all my grain and my goods. and i will say to my soul, 'soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' but god said to him, 'you fool! this very night your life is being demanded of you. and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' so it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward god." ( luke 12:16-21)

http://www.jesuscentral.com/ji/jesus-parables-teachings/jesus-teachings/jesus-seekingtreasures.php

i'm always amazed that the people who holler the most about god and country, want to make sure "god" stays on our money, are the ones who are most afraid they might have to pay for someone's food and medicine and yet - as i said earlier - have no problem paying for war.

now, does this mean i believe we should all give up everything we've earned and give it to those who are less fortunate? if i followed the bible, how could i not? i don't, though, and i admit it. i'm an agnostic and a humanist. your assertion to the heavens, which may or may not be there, and which may or may not have been a reference to the christian faith compelled me to bring up such things as these spoken by the greats of history. i believe it is the purpose of government to ensure the general welfare of our country - within limits. none of us should be expected to give up all we've earned and own in order that we should all have the same things in life. i'm not a communist. we should all be expected to pitch in, though, on the health of our nation, if not for humanitarian or religious reasons, at least, for our own security.

i don't know how this should be accomplished. should insurance companies not be allowed to price their sick customers out of insurance? should states handle their own insurance? should we have a national healthcare system? i don't know the answer but we need to find it.

people who are able to work and work, should make a living wage.

people who are sick should be cared for.

people who are hungry should be fed.

we can do better and i'm sure we can do better well. we are americans, after all.

Specializes in Critical Care.
i believe the general welfare of the united states is very dependent on its citizens being healthy and fed.

actually, not true. it was very dependent on the citizens having the freedom from gov't to succeed or fail, as they will. the general welfare clause cannot be construed as to allow anything congress wishes. the constitution itself, makes it perfectly clear that it has enumerated specific powers in order to establish the general welfare, and that congress may not operate outside those limits, in any means, to accomplish any goal not specifically listed.

charity and gov't restricted healthcare are not among those powers:

"our peculiar security is in the possession of a written constitution. let us not make it a blank paper by construction." - president thomas jefferson

u.s. supreme cabal: mcculloch v. maryland, regarding the 'necessary and proper' clause: the cabal defined this as congress may enact legislation within the powers (1) specifically enumerated by article i, section 8 and (2) that which reasonably "necessary and proper" in "carrying into execution" these powers and those elsewhere listed to congress in the constitution (ie. certain amendments). in other words, congress is strictly defined to very specifically enumerated powers and that which draws a reasonable relationship to these specific powers as a "means" of carrying into play their execution.

"[congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - james madison, federalist 14

"the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - james madison, federalist 45

"shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms [i.e. the terms “general welfare” and “necessary and proper”] be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions [i.e. the specific art.1, section 8 delineations of power] be denied any significance whatsoever? for what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. but the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." - james madison, federalist #41.

"if congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." - james madison, 1792

"the constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. if such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. it would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - thomas jefferson, 1791

as before observed? yes, by a monarchy we had just won independence from! the contruction of the general welfare clause to mean anything, in effect, turns the federal gov't into a monarch, and a tyrant, at that. this is what we rebelled against, and this is what we must avoid repeating: that is what jefferson is saying. kings always believe they are acting paternally in your best interests. that doesn't make them any less tyrants.

"congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." - thomas jefferson, 1798

"to consider the [general welfare clause]...as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they [congress] please, which might be for the good of the union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. it would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the united states; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. it is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. it was intended to lace them up strictly within the enumerated powers." - thomas jefferson.

"this specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of article i, section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - alexander hamilton, federalist 83

"no legislative act … contrary to the constitution can be valid. to deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - alexander hamilton, federalist 78

simply put, a gov't empowered to do all good is a government empowered to do all evil. freedom has tradeoffs, to be sure. but the greatest opportunity for all americans, even the poorest of the poor, is for the gov't to step aside and let them pursue their own life, liberty and happiness. those are inherent rights, yes. but, they are also responsibilities. no matter how noble you believe gov't can be, it cannot supplant that responsibility to one's self.

that is why trillions of dollars later, the war on poverty is a worse failure than the war in iraq. . .

~faith,

timothy.

Specializes in Med-Surg.

Charity and Gov't restricted healthcare are not among those powers:

Simply put, a gov't empowered to do all good is a government empowered to do all bad. There are tradeoffs, to be sure. But the greatest opportunity for all Americans, even the poorest of the poor, is for the gov't to step aside and let them pursue their own life, liberty and happiness. Those are inherent rights, yes. But, they are also responsibilities. No matter how noble you believe gov't can be, it cannot supplant that responsibility to one's self.

THAT is why trillions of dollars later, the war on poverty is a worse failure than the war in Iraq. . .

~faith,

Timothy.

Interesting, especially to see how far we have moved away from that document.

I guess we're just going to have to agree on some things and not agree on others. I have nothing against self-reliance, but I cannot advocate Social Darwinism, either. There has to be a middle ground.

BTW - "Governement Restricted Healthcare..." Nice, new talking point, but I don't think it's going to go over so well, anymore. There are too many hard working people who are falling through the cracks of our broken healthcare system to be bamboozled again by buzzwords and scare tactics. The fear is in not getting care. I don't think you can overcome the realities of that.

This is the message we've sent: "Here's your check, now stay out of our economy, and our society." I just don't find that to be compassionate.

Throwing a few bucks at a person might expiate some amount of guilt, but it fixes nothing. Personally, I would favor helping someone out of poverty rather than patting my back for making poverty more tolerable.

Giving somebody ANYTHING without teaching them how to get it for themselves is - and always will be - a short term bandaid. It's not compassionate, to be sure.

Ultimately, the problem with the Great Society is that it starts with the assumption that people shouldn't be responsible for themselves. That is a dreadful attack on the internal fortitude to pull oneself up out of poverty. "Don't worry yourselves: you aren't responsible and Uncle Daddy will be there for you." That is a recipe FOR poverty; not a pathway out of it.

~faith,

Timothy.

Addressing persistent childhood poverty is not charity. From an economic analysis alone it makes sense to intervene and help these children and their families develop the skills that they need to achieve and succeed in our society. But from a values standpoint it is more important to do this because it is the right thing to do.

I don't think anything I have ever written condones a non-work ethic or irresponsibility. If anything I have written in favor of the opposite. I was speaking in my post to the larger value of what use of tax dollars yields the greater long term benefit to society. I think that I very clearly spoke to my own preference for using tax dollars to help give the poor real job skills and not condemn them to a life of meniality working for WalMart. Real job skills for careers that pay a living wage. (Machinist, nurse whatever). Living wage jobs that take families away from dependency. Helping them become a part of society. Family and child early intervention programs do work and pay for themselves in direct benefits both to families and society at large.

See:

table1.jpg

Thus a strong consensus has developed among experts who have studied high-quality early childhood development programs that these programs have substantial and enduring payoffs. Long-term studies of ECD participants have consistently found that investing in children has several lasting, important benefits for the participants, their families, and society at large including taxpayers. These benefits include:

Higher levels of verbal, mathematical, and general intellectual achievement

Greater success at school, including less grade retention, less need for special education, and higher graduation rates

Higher employment and earnings

Better health outcomes

Less welfare dependency

Lower crime rates

Higher government revenues and lower government expenditures

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/book_enriching#exec

The above is real compassion.

The following shows how poverty is a cause of premature death.

The Economic Geography of Premature Mortality

(by Boston neighborhood and census-tract poverty levels, 1999-2001)

Boston neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty generally have higher rates of premature mortality (newly defined as death under 75 years of age). The map depicts the association, by neighborhood, between the proportion of residents within the neighborhood living in census tracts of differing poverty levels (color-coded legend below, and in bars on map) and the meighborhood's overall rate of premature mortality (the darker the backgroung, the higher the incidence of early death). key.gif

neigh.gif

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/030636.html

Specializes in Community, OB, Nursery.
I'm always amazed that the people who holler the most about God and country, want to make sure "God" stays on our money, are the ones who are most afraid they might have to pay for someone's food and medicine and yet - as I said earlier - have no problem paying for war.

We should all be expected to pitch in, though, on the health of our nation, if not for humanitarian or religious reasons, at least, for our own security.

People who are able to work and work, should make a living wage.

People who are sick should be cared for.

People who are hungry should be fed.

Chybil, I have to address this. I am a Bible-believing Christian, and go to what would be called a conservative church. And I think you are right on the money. It is precisely because of my faith that I feel so strongly about helping my fellow man. Look through the Bible....so many people that Jesus healed. He could've said, "Nope, sorry, you haven't worked hard enough for it. Why should I heal you, a beggar, when there are plenty of working people who are sick too? Why should I heal your daughter, Syrophoenician woman, when there are plenty of Jewish kids who need my attention first?" No. He healed them, period. I am not saying that I'm the prime example of following Christ. Far from it; that is just the ideal that I aspire to as one of His followers.

Ideally, the gov't shouldn't have to be the one to provide for everyone's needs, be they healthcare, food, job training, name that commodity. Ideally, God's people should be the ones doing that. We should be so committed to walking in His steps that we take away any need for gov't intervention/interference (whichever way you look at it). But since we as individuals haven't stepped up to the plate, somebody has to. If it bothers us so much to see gov't intervening, then we ourselves should be the ones to help out -- donating, feeding, teaching, etc. God forbid we should ever have a run of bad luck (or whatever you call it, I really don't believe in luck) and be in those same desperate straits ourselves. I completely believe in the Golden Rule and do my best to help others because I know I would want someone to help me should I ever find myself in the unfortunate circumstance wherein I cannot put food on my table.

Chybil, I have to address this. I am a Bible-believing Christian, and go to what would be called a conservative church. And I think you are right on the money. It is precisely because of my faith that I feel so strongly about helping my fellow man. Look through the Bible....so many people that Jesus healed. He could've said, "Nope, sorry, you haven't worked hard enough for it. Why should I heal you, a beggar, when there are plenty of working people who are sick too? Why should I heal your daughter, Syrophoenician woman, when there are plenty of Jewish kids who need my attention first?" No. He healed them, period. I am not saying that I'm the prime example of following Christ. Far from it; that is just the ideal that I aspire to as one of His followers.

Ideally, the gov't shouldn't have to be the one to provide for everyone's needs, be they healthcare, food, job training, name that commodity. Ideally, God's people should be the ones doing that. We should be so committed to walking in His steps that we take away any need for gov't intervention/interference (whichever way you look at it). But since we as individuals haven't stepped up to the plate, somebody has to. If it bothers us so much to see gov't intervening, then we ourselves should be the ones to help out -- donating, feeding, teaching, etc. God forbid we should ever have a run of bad luck (or whatever you call it, I really don't believe in luck) and be in those same desperate straits ourselves. I completely believe in the Golden Rule and do my best to help others because I know I would want someone to help me should I ever find myself in the unfortunate circumstance wherein I cannot put food on my table.

Government is a tool by which we can offer help to our fellow man. I absolutely believe in the role of private acts of good to improve the lot of the least fortunate. Where government has a role is it provides a place where decisions can be made to allocate resources to meet needs that are beyond the capacity of smaller organizations. I think it is important to have constructive practical discussions about how to solve real problems.

Specializes in Critical Care.
Government is a tool by which we can offer help to our fellow man. I absolutely believe in the role of private acts of good to improve the lot of the least fortunate. Where government has a role is it provides a place where decisions can be made to allocate resources to meet needs that are beyond the capacity of smaller organizations. I think it is important to have constructive practical discussions about how to solve real problems.

The problem is that the so called anti-poverty programs do no such thing. It's not that I'm not compassionate; it's that I believe the programs in place and the programs advocated by socialists/progressives aren't compassionate.

This is a rich nation. No one should go without food, shelter, and yes, even healthcare. I have never said otherwise.

What I HAVE said is that the socialist/progressive idea of a utopia is a house of cards that always falls because at its heart, it ignores basic human motivations. Trillions of dollars and decades later, and we are no closer to ending 'poverty as we know it'.

See, the goal of current and proposed (within this thread) anti-poverty programs isn't to lift people out of poverty. At its heart, the socialist/progressive agenda is to equalize outcomes. At issue is not how to provide incentive to move out of poverty, but rather, how to make amends for poverty itself.

Redistribution of wealth is a concept that the outcomes should be equalized: from each according to his strengths, to each according to his needs. Since poverty is a value-neutral station in life, there should BE no penalty for being poor. There but for the grace of God go I, right?

Except, it's not true. Abled-bodied people that are poor do bear responsibility for their situation. Or rather, they (and only they) possess the power to overcome and move out of poverty. It's not that God has blessed ME with the rewards of hard work and not others; it's that God blesses hard work, period.

Instead of poverty programs designed to provide incentive to get out of poverty, socialist/progressives have designed programs to ameliorate being poor; to accomodate it.

Single family housing, food stamp programs that allow for as much access and as rich an assortment of food as anybody, free health insurance, cash in hand. Redistribution is about equalizing outcomes. There should be no penalty for being poor, right? Look at the healthcare debate: socialist/progressive do not argue that everybody should have access to healthcare; they argue that everybody should have access to the SAME level of healthcare. Instead of arguing for a foot in the door of a great system, socialist/progressives argue for an equal share in a dismal outcome.

You can convince Americans to provide for the less well off. THAT's why we've spent the trillions of dollars in the last several decades. You can even convince them to cover everybody for healthcare. THAT's why medicaid, schip, and EMTALA are tolerated. Money is just money. Americans will cede a significant portion of their own money over in taxes IF they think it is helping the less fortunate. For socialist/progressives, this concept is a foot in the door. At the end of the day, however, most Americans will not sacrifice their standard of living in order to help others. Americans are fine with the concept of helping others rise up; not so fine with the concept of forcing those that work and pay for the system down to an equal level. THAT is why gov't restricted healthcare will not sell in this nation. It is why President Clinton was forced to sign the welfare reform act: the masses of Americans got tired of welfare that gives those that don't work equal access to the stations in life of people that DO work. Americans are always willing to help; they are just not willing to lower their own stations in life and call it even.

In an older thread, I argued that if socialist/progressivess regulated ice cream, we'd only be entitled to a bowl every 6 weeks. Somebody actually responded that a bowl every 6 weeks was better than nothing if you couldn't afford it. Understand this though: to that person, it was a better system for everybody to wait six weeks to get ice cream than a system where the vast majority could get ice cream for fractions of an hour's wage. The goal wasn't to get the poor more access to ice cream; it was to make sure that the masses didn't have a higher level of access. Equalizing outcomes is not the same thing as providing for those in need. Not at all. At heart, these programs do not advocate better access but rather, a "fair" share in a dismal outcome.

Except. Making amends for being poor only allows the continued subsistance in poverty. We have removed, in the name of combating poverty, the motivations to rise above it. We have created a standard of living, on welfare.

Welfare should be a hand up, not a standard of living.

Let me point out that 'soaking the rich' should have nothing to do with anti-poverty. If the goal truly were helping the poor, who cares what station in life anybody else holds? But it DOES matter when the goal is equalizing outcomes. THAT is why socialist/progressive spend so much time railing against the rich. Helping the poor isn't about helping the poor; it is about a socialist idea of equalized outcomes. Since socialism itself ignores basic human motivations, ending in failure, it is no surprise that anti-poverty programs designed by its followers invariably result in the same failures.

Socialist/progressives will never design programs based upon the motivations to excel because it is not their goal. Their goal isn't to move people out of poverty, but rather, by redistribution, to equalize outcomes. That type of anti-poverty program is, and always will be, a failure.

Therein lies the problem. I'm not against helping the poor. I'm against the socialist/progressive programs that do no such thing. You can feel free to call me uncompassionate. I'm against the current anti-poverty programs not because I'm uncompassionate but because I believe these programs themselves TO BE uncompassionate.

Designing programs, in the name of redistribution, that allow for the subsistance in poverty and NOT for reaching up out of poverty, is not compassionate.

(If you believe that progressive is not merely a more politically correct name for socialist, then I humbly ask that you point out the differences. I've asked this question before, and it has never been answered.)

~faith,

Timothy.

Specializes in Community, OB, Nursery.

FTR, I don't believe in utopia as long as there are imperfect people living in this world. Which is going to be for a long time, depending on when/how you think the world will end.

But I do believe there is a way that people can be given a hand up and I believe that it CAN come from the gov't. Like I said in previous posts, we who are supposed to be Christ's hands and feet in this world should be the ones doing it ideally, but we fall short as often as anyone else.

The longer I live in the US, the more I think places like Finland really have their act together. There is not nearly the crime rate, the poverty rate, the government stupidity, the teen pregnancy rate, or the high % of uninsured. Yup, I said it. I think I like the way things a lot of things are done in a social democracy.

I'm not saying I hate the US, nor am I ungrateful for the opportunities I've been given here. BUT -- we obviously don't have all the answers and we would do well watch & learn from others who might just be onto something. Finns can go to church wherever they want, they elect their own president & parliament, they can criticize their government. They can also count on their health needs being met. They can count on affordable (nice, safe) government-subsidized housing should they need it (everyone doesn't). Mothers (and fathers) have 9-month parental leaves after a baby's birth. If they want more unpaid leave, their jobs are protected for three years. Finns can come and go as they please. And to top it all off, they have TWO official languages. (Just had to throw that in there.) I could go on and on.

To be sure, it's not utopia, since it's full of human beings. There are problems there just like everywhere else. You can't escape that in an imperfect world. There are things that seem kind of silly, like if you want to get married under the age of 18 you have to write the President asking permission. (Whether she grants it or not, who knows.) But really, it just seems that the Finnish gov't does things so sensibly. And they don't live like it's 1984.

Specializes in Critical Care.
FTR, I don't believe in utopia as long as there are imperfect people living in this world. Which is going to be for a long time, depending on when/how you think the world will end.

But I do believe there is a way that people can be given a hand up and I believe that it CAN come from the gov't. Like I said in previous posts, we who are supposed to be Christ's hands and feet in this world should be the ones doing it ideally, but we fall short as often as anyone else.

The longer I live in the US, the more I think places like Finland really have their act together. There is not nearly the crime rate, the poverty rate, the government stupidity, the teen pregnancy rate, or the high % of uninsured. Yup, I said it. I think I like the way things a lot of things are done in a social democracy.

I'm not saying I hate the US, nor am I ungrateful for the opportunities I've been given here. BUT -- we obviously don't have all the answers and we would do well watch & learn from others who might just be onto something. Finns can go to church wherever they want, they elect their own president & parliament, they can criticize their government. They can also count on their health needs being met. They can count on affordable (nice, safe) government-subsidized housing should they need it (everyone doesn't). Mothers (and fathers) have 9-month parental leaves after a baby's birth. If they want more unpaid leave, their jobs are protected for three years. Finns can come and go as they please. And to top it all off, they have TWO official languages. (Just had to throw that in there.) I could go on and on.

To be sure, it's not utopia, since it's full of human beings. There are problems there just like everywhere else. You can't escape that in an imperfect world. There are things that seem kind of silly, like if you want to get married under the age of 18 you have to write the President asking permission. (Whether she grants it or not, who knows.) But really, it just seems that the Finnish gov't does things so sensibly. And they don't live like it's 1984.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f6eed1b6-d750-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html

"Opinion polls did not predict the result, but what has happened in Finland seems to mirror a process across the Nordic region: social democracy is in retreat.

The swing away from the Social Democrats suggests that the traditional Nordic model of high taxation and generous welfare policies may also be less reassuring in countries with an ageing population. Finland expects to have the oldest population in the European Union in the next 10 years. From 2010 the workforce is expected to shrink by 10,000 a year.

"Ageing is the biggest challenge to our economy," Erkki Liikanen, the Bank of Finland governor, said yesterday"

The problem, just as the Soviets figured out, and just as Finland is figuring out, is that you cannot tax yourself into prosperity. Systems built on such models are pyramids: they might make the first-in rich, or relatively better off, but at the back-in, it's a house of cards that falls.

THIS is why unemployment and economic growth in America is currently twice that of Europe. It is also why Europe must import Muslims from all over, creating political problems: a pyramid scheme depends upon new blood into the system.

It is also, btw, why Social Security is doomed to fail. You can't sustain a pyramid scheme forever.

The issue is sustainability. These programs, over the long haul, are simply unsustainable. Why? Because, you cannot tax yourself into prosperity.

~faith,

Timothy.

Specializes in Community, OB, Nursery.

I read the article and didn't think it was as alarmist as your post sounds. Doesn't sound to me like the Finnish economic infrastructure is going to be radically changing anytime soon. You may think otherwise and that's fine. I am going to sleep ok tonight either way.

I don't know about you but I don't need prosperity, at least not material prosperity. I don't feel the need for the two-car garage populated by a Bentley and a Benz, nor the 3/4-million dollar home on 100 acres of land. And I have a big issue when people start acting like toddlers saying "MINE!" and not wanting to share.

Material prosperity is just that -- materials. Things. Things that I will not be taking with me when I die. Everything I have is not really mine to begin with. So it is not that big a deal to me to be sharing tax dollars, esp if I know they are going to fund decent maternity leave. Better that than raises for overpaid Congressmen.

+ Join the Discussion