Treating poverty works like medicine, doctors say

[eyeball]

Which is exactly why we give them different kinds of help. Instead of giving money to their parents that the kids may never see, we institute meal programs at schools, and clothing drives, and equipment drives so they can play sports, and grants to cover the registration for those sports, and increased policing so that their neighborhoods are safe, and training programs so that those parents who are motivated can qualify for better paying jobs to get out from that bottom, and grants to employers if they hire those people.

This is good except we need way way way more of it.

The problem is definitely about access and the choices that access grants. The government chooses to give wealthy people more access to it's power which results in a tilted playing field, a widening income gap, economic injustice and a crapload of other social and economic problems. Don't even get me started on the deficit of natural capital and environmental degradation exacerbating the above mentioned crapload that too much access to power has caused.

It's treating wealth that isn't working.

For the most part, the problem is not access, it's people's choices. It's their patterns of action that leave most people poor. Giving those people more money won't solve that problem, they need other kinds of help.

They need more power. Or put another way the wealthy need less, way way way less.

[Pliny]

Giving children free vaccinations saves real health costs.

Educating women about FAS saves real health (and other) costs.

Providing free needles saves real health costs.

Providing kids with nutritious school meals will save health costs.

Providing children with accessible active recreation programs will save real heath (and social) costs.

A housing-first program for homeless people saves policing and EMS costs.

Not every social program is effective and cost-efficient - but many are proven to be, and they should be expanded.

I notice that for most of them they generally do expand, saving us even more. No breakfast? No needles? No housing? No playground? No problem...it shall be provided. I don't know...sounds scary to me. The programs expand to include the marginally excluded. Eventually the service has to be degraded.

The State as you know gets its funding from the fat of the land and if there happens to be an economic slump it will deficit finance itself and its services. I think rather than create all sorts of victims of circumstance is to firstly not make them feel like victims or teach them that certain entitlements are a right and create dependency. Social Welfare becomes for some just as bad an addiction as heroin.

This is where all these social welfare programs eventually lead to:

http://www.newsmaxworld.com/GlobalTalk/germany-welfare-model-scrapped/2013/05/28/id/506586?s=al&promo_code=13A71-1

Edited May 30, 2013 by Pliny

[Pliny]

They need more power. Or put another way the wealthy need less, way way way less.

Yeah, the State should determine how much they need and they can get in line behind the rest.

[eyeball]

Really, you don't figure voters should determine that? I thought you wanted to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.

[Pliny]

Really, you don't figure voters should determine that? I thought you wanted to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.

The State should have nothing to do with it so they shouldn't be voting on that issue what so ever. Maybe I should have put a little after my statement.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Pliny

[carepov]

I notice that for most of them they generally do expand, saving us even more. No breakfast? No needles? No housing? No playground? No problem...it shall be provided. I don't know...sounds scary to me. The programs expand to include the marginally excluded. Eventually the service has to be degraded.

The State as you know gets its funding from the fat of the land and if there happens to be an economic slump it will deficit finance itself and its services. I think rather than create all sorts of victims of circumstance is to firstly not make them feel like victims or teach them that certain entitlements are a right and create dependency. Social Welfare becomes for some just as bad an addiction as heroin.

I agree that many government programs do over-expand (military procurement comes to mind primarily). There needs to be continual assessment to ensure social programs are efficient, effective, and are not being abused. Successful programs should expand and unsuccessful ones should be cut.

The most successful social programs will increase the State's wealth in the long run.

Regarding the victim mentality, I agree that it is not a good idea to promote this type of mentality and it is 100% a good idea to promote independence and inter-dependence. What you seem to be missing is that some people actually ARE victims (for example: young children, refugees, victims of natural disasters, the abused, disabled...).

Edited May 31, 2013 by carepov

[eyeball]

Well we agree then because I wouldn't leave such a thing to the state either, nor would I just leave it hanging there.

[CPCFTW]

Is this really surprising? Health is the one thing most people would not put a price on.

That said, this does not contradict any conservative thought... it actually reinforces it.

Rather than wasting society's wealth on bureaucracies, inflated public sector wages, welfare, ei, overpaid teachers, police officers, nurses, bus drivers, etc., we should be trying to reduce taxes and prices so that people have more disposable income to stay healthy.

Higher property taxes = poor renters will pay higher rent

Higher gas taxes = poor people will pay more to drive or take the bus, and for heating, energy, and consumer products

Parking taxes/tolls = poor people will pay more to get to work

Higher corporate taxes = poor people will have less jobs

Higher payroll taxes and ei contribution rates = poor people will have less jobs

etc.

[Pliny]

What you seem to be missing is that some people actually ARE victims (for example: young children, refugees, victims of natural disasters, the abused, disabled...).

I'm not missing that. It is being a victim that they need to overcome. They should not be kept a victim, made to feel like a victim, helped to continue their role as a victim, all into perpetuity. This is the "help" that most government subsidized programs offer because they do not wish nor would they even exist if they did not perpetuate the victim mentality.

Are you a victim? Don't be one. You cannot get past your suffering by proclaiming you are a victim. It is crippling to the individual to maintain that label as it serves to stick the person in his past bad experiences. They need to get over the emotional upset and get on with life. It is difficult to do and made even more difficult by do-good programs that teach the person how much he is the effect of his circumstances and cannot direct his life. He certainly can't if he views himself a victim.

[carepov]

I'm not missing that. It is being a victim that they need to overcome. They should not be kept a victim, made to feel like a victim, helped to continue their role as a victim, all into perpetuity. This is the "help" that most government subsidized programs offer because they do not wish nor would they even exist if they did not perpetuate the victim mentality.

Are you a victim? Don't be one. You cannot get past your suffering by proclaiming you are a victim. It is crippling to the individual to maintain that label as it serves to stick the person in his past bad experiences. They need to get over the emotional upset and get on with life. It is difficult to do and made even more difficult by do-good programs that teach the person how much he is the effect of his circumstances and cannot direct his life. He certainly can't if he views himself a victim.

I think that you are over-generalizing. IMO, most government programs do encourage "victims" to overcome their obstacles and begin standing up on their own two feet:

-EI and related training programs

-Disaster relief

-programs that help immigrants learn our languages and better integrate

-Health care

-Programs for children

There are many improvements to be made to social programs (IMO some good work is being done with EI for seasonal work), but I do not agree with your claim that social programs teach and encourage users to keep depending on those programs.

When I think "victim mentality" I also think of military procurement, where our country "needs" armoured icebreakers and F15 stealth fighters at ridiculously inflated prices. Also, how much is spent on "corporate victims" that "need" bailouts, tax breaks, subsidies, loan guarantees and credits?

[bush_cheney2004]

When I think "victim mentality" I also think of military procurement, where our country "needs" armoured icebreakers and F15 stealth fighters at ridiculously inflated prices. Also, how much is spent on "corporate victims" that "need" bailouts, tax breaks, subsidies, loan guarantees and credits?

The "corporate victims" actually employ people who pay taxes. Is that the same idea behind building a huge victim class, who pay far less ?

Can we all become "victims" and live happily ever after ?

[carepov]

The "corporate victims" actually employ people who pay taxes.

I disagree.

"Corporate welfare is a politically created illusion with no visible means of support. Economists who study crony capitalism are clear about why it fails: Money is taken from taxpayers and from productive businesses. In the case of businesses, such money is sometimes transferred to businesses in the same sector at the expense of the “giving” business.

This is why the “we’re-creating-jobs” argument from the federal Conservatives as it concerns business subsidies is wrong: If that money were left with individuals and businesses, it would anyway have been spent elsewhere or saved and invested. Instead, the federal Tories are addicted to the political picking of corporate welfare winners and losers.

The official title of Budget 2013 was “Jobs, Growth, and Long-Term Prosperity.” It should have been “Grants, Subsidies and Eternal Business Handouts.”"

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/03/28/canadas-corporate-welfare-budget/

[bush_cheney2004]

I disagree.

That's fine, but it is impossible to separate the "corporatists" from the lesser business gods that make the economy tick. It is very integrated....labour...capital...supply chains.....services.....etc. Anybody who really believes in their "corporatist" social rhetoric should welcome the demise of economic growth and vitality just to prove their point. That way, we could all suffer equally....yay.

[Pliny]

I think that you are over-generalizing. IMO, most government programs do encourage "victims" to overcome their obstacles and begin standing up on their own two feet:

-EI and related training programs

-Disaster relief

-programs that help immigrants learn our languages and better integrate

-Health care

-Programs for children

There are many improvements to be made to social programs (IMO some good work is being done with EI for seasonal work), but I do not agree with your claim that social programs teach and encourage users to keep depending on those programs.

When I think "victim mentality" I also think of military procurement, where our country "needs" armoured icebreakers and F15 stealth fighters at ridiculously inflated prices. Also, how much is spent on "corporate victims" that "need" bailouts, tax breaks, subsidies, loan guarantees and credits?

Undeniably there are efforts to minimize the effects of social problems, I find they are self perpetuating - no one wants to kill their job by resolving the very reason for its existence.

[Michael Hardner]

Undeniably there are efforts to minimize the effects of social problems, I find they are self perpetuating - no one wants to kill their job by resolving the very reason for its existence.

Maybe the next step is to find somebody whose job it is to kill jobs once they're not needed anymore.

[Pliny]

Maybe the next step is to find somebody whose job it is to kill jobs once they're not needed anymore.

Who would ever admit to having a job that is not needed anymore or work towards that goal?

We don't need make work projects that serve to just increase the dirty laundry bill. We could set ourselves to reaching greater goals like getting to Alpha Centauri. It just requires printing up a few trillion dollars. Let's ask the fed?

[Michael Hardner]

Who would ever admit to having a job that is not needed anymore or work towards that goal?

We don't need make work projects that serve to just increase the dirty laundry bill. We could set ourselves to reaching greater goals like getting to Alpha Centauri. It just requires printing up a few trillion dollars. Let's ask the fed?

Restated: Maybe the next step is to having someone in a job that kills jobs once they're not needed anymore.

[Pliny]

Restated: Maybe the next step is to having someone in a job that kills jobs once they're not needed anymore.

Restated: No job is not needed anymore.

[carepov]

Undeniably there are efforts to minimize the effects of social problems, I find they are self perpetuating - no one wants to kill their job by resolving the very reason for its existence.

So I guess all those researchers that are looking for a cure to cancer are just faking it.

The same way that CFS workers are pretending to help children and are actually secretly undermining the system so that there are more suffering children therefore more customers and job security for themselves.

[Pliny]

So I guess all those researchers that are looking for a cure to cancer are just faking it.

I think they may be on the wrong track. They won't research anything they can't patent.

One day I watched the "Nature of Things" about helicobacter pylori and how it caused ulcers. They also made the claim in the show that helicobactar pylori if present in the case of some stomach and pancreatic cancers cleared up when the helicobactar pylori was addressed. I haven't heard a peep about it since.

The same way that CFS workers are pretending to help children and are actually secretly undermining the system so that there are more suffering children therefore more customers and job security for themselves.

It is not untrue that someone with only a hammer sees a lot of nails.

I know you are treating my view sarcastically and it is not that I think people are evil, they can be selfish in that they will preserve their own importance, status or position. Chartered Accountants for instance will pooh-pooh or be critical of or sarcastic about any idea to replace the income tax with a different form of tax. Lawyers will object to any simplification of legislation and work to ensure it's complexity - Not for their benefit of course, but for your protection. It is all very necessary and they are convinced of that more than their clients.

[Michael Hardner]

Restated: No job is not needed anymore.

I suppose if you call the summer student hammering rubber horseshoes with fake hammers at Black Creek Pioneer village a 'blacksmith' then you are correct.

[Pliny]

I suppose if you call the summer student hammering rubber horseshoes with fake hammers at Black Creek Pioneer village a 'blacksmith' then you are correct.

Did I say that no job is not needed anymore? Can't believe I said that. But as a qualifier, let's say, "It is generally thought by the person with a job that his job is important and shouldn't be done away with." No one likes to think their job is not needed anymore.

But I was thinking in terms of bureaucrats and them building their empires mostly.

[Michael Hardner]

But I was thinking in terms of bureaucrats and them building their empires mostly.

How about a team of independent (and lightly armed) MBAs charged with achieving service goals AND cost cuts, that work on commission ?

The mind boggles at what could be done.

[Pliny]

How about a team of independent (and lightly armed) MBAs charged with achieving service goals AND cost cuts, that work on commission ?

The mind boggles at what could be done.

What? And make the most important job of all irrelevant - that of the bureaucrat. The era of Bureaucratic Empires coming to an end? It really is the Apocalypse.

[Michael Hardner]

What? And make the most important job of all irrelevant - that of the bureaucrat. The era of Bureaucratic Empires coming to an end? It really is the Apocalypse.

Maybe the end of the inflated role of the middleman ?