What should we do with poor people?

[Ban my account ffs!]

The options are really sarcastic, but please do pick one.  It is a serious debate.  I, of course, support giving the poor the tools they need to improve themselves.  I believe many poor people are poor because their situation prevents them from improving their lives when they are bright enough to be successful. 

I would propose:

More scholarships/grants for college education.  Perhaps free tuition at public colleges/universities.  Anybody who has gone to college recently or is in college right now can agree that "putting yourself through college" is almost impossible unless you are working full time and also taking out $thousands in loans.

Subsidized child care for single mothers with targeted aid if they are working on a college degree/certificate.  This would mean, of course, paying for housing, utilities, transportation, food, and a small cash stipend as long as they were working towards their degree.

Full welfare for people who need it.  (Disabled and cannot work, mentally handicapped, etc.)  If these illnesses are a result of working, that workplace should obviously pay the cost of rehabilitation.

Our society would benefit from making these relatively small investments in people, because they could become educated and give more back to society than they ever could have if they were simply ignored.

[Reignman]

Heh. Voting options are funny. I voted for the first one, of course.

[specific_name]

Government should do nothing other than provide the barest essentials to those in need. There's a difference between being poor and being permanently disabled, the later group should receive some kind of protection.

However, being poor does not necessarily entitle you to public money. Childcare should not be subsidized by anyone but those that choose to have children. Contraception is readily available and abortion is legal, if you cannot support a child, do not make the wrong choice. We don't want to pay for it. As for those that become disabled and unable to care for their child(ren), I believe they should indeed receive benefits. Unforeseeable emergencies do warrant assistance. I'm not utterly opposed to some type of "safety net," but it needs to be limited to helping people get on their own feet.

As for free college tuition, I disagree strongly. Perhaps we could create merit based scholarships to aid the poor who have incentive to complete college. Across the board free college is not something the public should have to pay for.

[Bono]

Poisoning the well.

[Ban my account ffs!]

And what's with the signature, Bono?

If the people that worked hardest were the richest, I don't think you'd have the same political debate.  The very reason people support wealth redistribution is because they believe that the rich become rich not because of their own merit and hard work, but by exploiting others or inhereting it.

So, it would be more correct if the teacher said "Well, Tanja, I realize that you worked very hard on your paper and you deserve an A+, but I'm only going to give you a C while I'll give the other boy an A+ because his daddy donated lots of money to the school so I could have a job."

[John Dibble]

Wow, this poll obviously has not bias.

Frankly it's a difficult question, and not one that can be answered with pre-fabricated poll questions. If you give them too much they'll become dependent (sometimes to the point of being spoiled) and stay poor for the rest of their lives, and if you give them too little it may be too difficult for them to rise up. If you make the system too big you'll get tons of loopholes that people will take advantage of even if they don't actually need to, and if you make it too small those that should qualify might not because qualifications are so strict.

So it's really not so simple as "give them benefits" or "pull the rug out from under them".

1. Maintain some form of free public schooling up to high school, and try to maintain quality in said schools whenever possible. There are a variety of ways one might propose to do this, but that's another matter altogether. Also, ensure quality vocational training is available in high schools for those not wishing or able to go to college.

2. I wouldn't go so far as free tuition all around, but states should implement programs similar to Georgia's HOPE scholarship - it pays for in-state tuition at public schools for students who attended high-school in-state and maintained a B average or higher. (average must be maintained in college as well) Not only is the program based on merit, it is funded by the state lottery instead of taxes so I've got no problems with it whatsoever. Plain old free tuition on the other hand would be extremely costly to the taxpayers and many would go in and waste that money by failing out through sloth.

3. As far as welfare goes, if it must exist it's purpose should be to help people get back on their feet after their fallen down - it's a safety net people, not a safety hammock. The time most people should be allowed to use it should be limited and based on pursuit of full time employment. Those who are unable to work at all due to disability might receive full benefits on a permanent basis, but only if they have nobody to fall back on to take care of them. (for those that do have someone, that someone could receive tax breaks or some other form of assistance)

Welfare recipients might also be required to attend money management classes so they could learn to squeeze the most out of their dollars.

4. Give to charity you cheap jerks.

5. If all else fails, let's divide up the poorest amongst our people and send them to France and Canada and let them take care of the problem.

[Colin]

What is it with you Minnesotans? Can you only see in black and white?

[Bono]

And what's with the signature, Bono?

If the people that worked hardest were the richest, I don't think you'd have the same political debate.  The very reason people support wealth redistribution is because they believe that the rich become rich not because of their own merit and hard work, but by exploiting others or inhereting it.

So, it would be more correct if the teacher said "Well, Tanja, I realize that you worked very hard on your paper and you deserve an A+, but I'm only going to give you a C while I'll give the other boy an A+ because his daddy donated lots of money to the school so I could have a job."

First off, this poll's options are poisoning the well.
Second, the argument you're making, even if it were correct, would only be an argument for aggressive inheritance taxing.
Third, it is obviously incorrect. It is based on a fundamental leftwing assumption that all rich people are evil and merely exploit society. The fact is that rich people, unless they use their money to stuff mattresses, benefit the economy no matter what they do. If they spend the money, they create employment in the industries they consume from. If they save it, they make money available for loan to entrepreneurs--especially poor entrepreneur candidates that don't have much start up capital, enabling the meritocracy you claim to support. If they invest it, they generate employment and can also make money available to entrepreneurs in the form of venture capital. Of course, your alleged support for a meritocracy is nothing but a farce. You can't have a true meritocracy if you don't allow people to enjoy the fruit of their merit and work.

[Alcon]

First off, this poll's options are poisoning the well.

With all due respect, your signature isn't much better than this poll.

[nclib]

And what's with the signature, Bono?

If the people that worked hardest were the richest, I don't think you'd have the same political debate.  The very reason people support wealth redistribution is because they believe that the rich become rich not because of their own merit and hard work, but by exploiting others or inhereting it.

So, it would be more correct if the teacher said "Well, Tanja, I realize that you worked very hard on your paper and you deserve an A+, but I'm only going to give you a C while I'll give the other boy an A+ because his daddy donated lots of money to the school so I could have a job."

Good point. I find it hypocritical that the same people who claim that people can become successful solely through hard work, support legacies in college admissions that do the exact opposite of rewarding hard work.

[David S]

Option 1 sounds nice on the surface but what's not said is that those benefits cost money and that money has to come from somewhere. You say "give them" these benefits but you don't say where the money will come from. If you're planning to pay for it yourself then I applaud your noble efforts and maybe I might even kick in a few bucks of my own.  On the other hand if you intend to tax the money away from someone else who worked hard to earn it then I'd say being generous with someone else's money is not noble.

[SPC]

Have you ever considered that private charity could do anything for the poor?

[Citizen James]

And what's with the signature, Bono?

If the people that worked hardest were the richest, I don't think you'd have the same political debate.  The very reason people support wealth redistribution is because they believe that the rich become rich not because of their own merit and hard work, but by exploiting others or inhereting it.

So, it would be more correct if the teacher said "Well, Tanja, I realize that you worked very hard on your paper and you deserve an A+, but I'm only going to give you a C while I'll give the other boy an A+ because his daddy donated lots of money to the school so I could have a job."

Ah yes, I remember the days when Republicans believed in investing in America and making the "financial pie bigger" through things like investing in infrastructure and encouraging the creation of a larger pool of well qualified candidates to hire from via quality standards of education.

There are still companies that think that way, and many of them will survive long past the buisnesses run by the kleptocrats which have sway in the GOP right now - who make intense profits for themselves and short term shareholders (often including massive corporate welfare), but sabotage both their companies and their nations long term profits in favor of cashing out big in the short term.

However, for long term projects to succeed there has to be some sort of stable orginization (let's call it government) which oversees the creation and administration of various policies which benefit the common good.  Since some individuals will want to partake of the common good without paying their share of it, let's have the people make choices of what they believe are worthwhile projects (we can call it Democracy).  Or better yet, we can let the people choose individuals to represent them and make decisions on their behalf (we can call it a Republic).  But, in order to make sure people have certain ideal freedoms which allow it safe to openly debate while being in a minority and be treated fairly lets have a supreme law of the land (call it a constitution) which draws up the rules, ensures freedoms, and is difficult to change without a highly compelling reason which is widely supported.

Captialism at it's best is a win/win situation.  Exchanges of goods are made in a manner which is beneficial to both parties.  Life is not a zero sum game.  People who believe that it is (or worse, that it is a negative sum game) such at the editorial cartoon tend to end up worse for the wear in trying to outfox everyone because they believe that for them to succeed others must lose (which tends to make a lot of enemies), and end up playing out the prisoners dillemma in every transaction they make.

In a more realistic version - Zack and Tanya could discuss and debate each other's opinions, seek to understand each other's positions, and improve both their grades.

Then again, we could take a troglydite approach and make solyent green.


(oh, and props to Dibble.  He makes a solid ballanced and pragmatic arguement).

[Gabu]

The answer is obviously to just kill them all.  Then we wouldn't have any poor people.  Problem solved.

[opebo]

Actually the answer is obviously - stop making them poor.  Or rather,  if we are unwilling to completely eliminate the social heirarchy, reduce the oppression to which they are subject.

[Bono]

Actually the answer is obviously - stop making them poor.  Or rather,  if we are unwilling to completely eliminate the social heirarchy, reduce the oppression to which they are subject.

Why are you under the delusion that communism would not have poverty?

[opebo]

Actually the answer is obviously - stop making them poor.  Or rather,  if we are unwilling to completely eliminate the social heirarchy, reduce the oppression to which they are subject.

Why are you under the delusion that communism would not have poverty?

I expressed no opinion about 'communism', Bono, nor whether or no it woudl have poverty.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Actually the answer is obviously - stop making them poor.  Or rather,  if we are unwilling to completely eliminate the social heirarchy, reduce the oppression to which they are subject.

Why are you under the delusion that communism would not have poverty?

This is Opebo. He's an idiot.

[Bono]

Actually the answer is obviously - stop making them poor.  Or rather,  if we are unwilling to completely eliminate the social heirarchy, reduce the oppression to which they are subject.

Why are you under the delusion that communism would not have poverty?

I expressed no opinion about 'communism', Bono, nor whether or no it woudl have poverty.

THat is what you mean by "eliminating the social hierarchy".

[MaC]

write in: punch snowguy in the stomach for being an arrogant elitist prick who'se too stupid to understand how economies work.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Wow, this poll obviously has not bias.

Frankly it's a difficult question, and not one that can be answered with pre-fabricated poll questions. If you give them too much they'll become dependent (sometimes to the point of being spoiled) and stay poor for the rest of their lives, and if you give them too little it may be too difficult for them to rise up. If you make the system too big you'll get tons of loopholes that people will take advantage of even if they don't actually need to, and if you make it too small those that should qualify might not because qualifications are so strict.

So it's really not so simple as "give them benefits" or "pull the rug out from under them".

1. Maintain some form of free public schooling up to high school, and try to maintain quality in said schools whenever possible. There are a variety of ways one might propose to do this, but that's another matter altogether. Also, ensure quality vocational training is available in high schools for those not wishing or able to go to college.

2. I wouldn't go so far as free tuition all around, but states should implement programs similar to Georgia's HOPE scholarship - it pays for in-state tuition at public schools for students who attended high-school in-state and maintained a B average or higher. (average must be maintained in college as well) Not only is the program based on merit, it is funded by the state lottery instead of taxes so I've got no problems with it whatsoever. Plain old free tuition on the other hand would be extremely costly to the taxpayers and many would go in and waste that money by failing out through sloth.

3. As far as welfare goes, if it must exist it's purpose should be to help people get back on their feet after their fallen down - it's a safety net people, not a safety hammock. The time most people should be allowed to use it should be limited and based on pursuit of full time employment. Those who are unable to work at all due to disability might receive full benefits on a permanent basis, but only if they have nobody to fall back on to take care of them. (for those that do have someone, that someone could receive tax breaks or some other form of assistance)

Welfare recipients might also be required to attend money management classes so they could learn to squeeze the most out of their dollars.

4. Give to charity you cheap jerks.

5. If all else fails, let's divide up the poorest amongst our people and send them to France and Canada and let them take care of the problem.

Well said.  I think something like the "HOPE" program for poor students would be best, as it would give those who would like to go to college a chance.  Also, though, we should have a more specific program for single mothers, because I think there are enough of them to warrant a program. 

To the New Yorker that suggested abortion, part of being "pro-choice" means supporting a woman's RIGHT to choose.  If she chooses to have the baby and keep it, we shouldn't deny that baby a basic standard of life because the mother has had a sh**tty life/made poor choices.  You just sound like a militant liberal. 

Also, I feel very strongly about benefits for disabled people, because my mother is fully disabled and can no longer work.  She worked full time out of high school and after 10 years had a grand idea to build a resort where her parents grew up, so she did.  Her disability caused her to lose the resort (a long story), and now she can't even walk or wheel herself in a wheelchair, and yet she is 100% of sound mind.  I won't, nor will you, ever understand that frustration unless you have experienced something similar.  I'm not belittling your hardships, but don't belittle mine.

[specific_name]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Addressing me, I assume? (only new yorker in this thread) I'm certainly not a militant liberal. If I feel the public shouldn't have to support people who make flagrantly poor choices, that certainly suggests fiscal convervativism.

Here's what I said on the matter of the poor and childcare: "Childcare should not be subsidized by anyone but those that choose to have children. Contraception is readily available and abortion is legal, if you cannot support a child, do not make the wrong choice. We don't want to pay for it."

I stand by that opinion, even if it's harsh. Having a child on purpose when you know you cannot support it is a poor idea. Having a child by accident and keeping it is a poor choice if you cannot afford it. My mention of contraception was to make the point that accidents need not occur, and I do not feel bad for someone who doesn't use protection; they risk contracting STD's, which they may pass onto their child.

I do not expect the public to pick up the tab for such behavior. I would not deny mothers the personal choice to have children, no matter what their circumstances. But, with that choice comes responsibility.

[John Dibble]

Well said.  I think something like the "HOPE" program for poor students would be best, as it would give those who would like to go to college a chance.

The real beauty of the HOPE scholarship is that it's for everyone who makes the grades - not only does it provide to the poor, it encourages the brightests students in the state to stay there.

[Ban my account ffs!]

write in: punch snowguy in the stomach for being an arrogant elitist prick who'se too stupid to understand how economies work.

Ha.

[opebo]

Actually the answer is obviously - stop making them poor.  Or rather,  if we are unwilling to completely eliminate the social heirarchy, reduce the oppression to which they are subject.

Why are you under the delusion that communism would not have poverty?

I expressed no opinion about 'communism', Bono, nor whether or no it woudl have poverty.

THat is what you mean by "eliminating the social hierarchy".

Is it?  I'm not so sure that is the one and only method of doing that.  Anyway later in the same sentence I present the liberal Keyensian alternative - 'reduce the oppression to which they are subject' - which is of course the policy I advocate.