• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do entitlements help the poor get out of poverty?

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
27,129
Reaction score
11,162
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Natural Selection says what? :lamo
Natural selection has to do with what allows a critters to reproduce with more or less success compared to others of its kind. "Survival of the fittest" can impact that when the survival threshold has an impact before breeding occurs, but they're distinct things. (The old people example up thread doesn't have much of an impact on evolution because they were already past breeding age.)

The natural selection process has led us to where we are today. Groups of people who didn't work together and take care of one another all died off.
As you acknowledged by your silence on the matter, there's not some outside influence that renders what actually exists un-"natural." The evolutionary pressures that exist and existed created what we are. So far, it seems to be working quite well. Humans would prob'ly be classified as "of least concern" conservationally.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavidez TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
83,239
Reaction score
36,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Natural selection has to do with what allows a critters to reproduce with more or less success compared to others of its kind. "Survival of the fittest" can impact that when the survival threshold has an impact before breeding occurs, but they're distinct things. (The old people example up thread doesn't have much of an impact on evolution because they were already past breeding age.)

The natural selection process has led us to where we are today. Groups of people who didn't work together and take care of one another all died off.
As you acknowledged by your silence on the matter, there's not some outside influence that renders what actually exists un-"natural." The evolutionary pressures that exist and existed created what we are. So far, it seems to be working quite well. Humans would prob'ly be classified as "of least concern" conservationally.

Instead of promoting self reliance and then taking care of those TRULY IN NEED we instead continue to enable healthy and capable people to fail. Thems what shouldnt be procreating are doing it like bunnies.
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
27,129
Reaction score
11,162
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Instead of promoting self reliance and then taking care of those TRULY IN NEED we instead continue to enable healthy and capable people to fail.
Fail? What does "fail" mean in an evolutionary sense? Are you sure you're not making some sort of morality judgment?

Thems what shouldnt be procreating are doing it like bunnies.
I am not sure that any one of us has the necessary wisdom and foresight to make the distinction about who "should" and who "should not" breed--at least not if we try to make "should" an objective, scientific judgment. We don't know what our future evolutionary pressures will be. We can decide who each of us willing to reproduce with.

If we resort to the moral judgments you're ostensibly avoiding, then your case for being able to determine who should and should not breed becomes easier to defend.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavidez TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
83,239
Reaction score
36,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fail? What does "fail" mean in an evolutionary sense? Are you sure you're not making some sort of morality judgment?

I am not sure that any one of us has the necessary wisdom and foresight to make the distinction about who "should" and who "should not" breed--at least not if we try to make "should" an objective, scientific judgment. We don't know what our future evolutionary pressures will be. We can decide who each of us willing to reproduce with.

If we resort to the moral judgments you're ostensibly avoiding, then your case for being able to determine who should and should not breed becomes easier to defend.

In evolutionary sense the weak and crippled...those that were incaple of adapting...would simply...die. In our society we save them. We enable them. And note what I wrote before...."Irrelevant of whether or not it should be done, it doesnt change the fact that it IS being done." Take away welfare and every social program and what will you find?
 

RadicalModerate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
2,603
Location
Golden City of the Risen Dead
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I wonder if the anti-safety net people, after they got their way, would be complaining about the masses of homeless families living in their parks or living out of cars by their houses or milling about their schools in afternoon or panhandling for change in their downtown areas?
 
Last edited:

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I wonder if the anti-saftey net people, after they got their way, would be complaining about the masses of homeless families living in their parks or living out of their cars by their houses or milling about their schools?

nah, they'd die off in a few months
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Some Swedish economists did a study of living standards between US states vs. EU countries, and they found the top EU countries were in the bottom 5 of US states. Not surprising if you've lived in the EU. Upward mobility is tougher in the EU.

One tidbit: When you're paying 1.52 Euros per liter of gas (almost $9.00 per gallon), it drives up all prices and makes life generally more difficult.

http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf

.


timbro:

About Timbro
Timbro's mission is to originate, promote and disseminate ideas and issues supporting the principles of free markets, free enterprise, individual liberty and a free society. Timbro's main research areas going into 2009 are wealth accumulation, health and welfare reform, and aid and global development. Our operations also include Timbro Media Institute.

Success hinges on our ability to attract the talent needed to develop, formulate and advocate ideas. However, Timbro's research and reach extend far beyond its 15 - 20 full-time employees. Timbro serves as a platform for talented individuals. Dynamism and divergent opinions enrich our organization.

Timbro annually publishes 10 - 15 books and 20 reports, and hosts around 100 events. Many of our scholars appear regularly in print and broadcast media. Although Timbro operates primarily in Stockholm, we maintain a subsidiary program in southern Sweden.

Regardless our current research focus, Timbro always works to promote the classics and to win the hearts and minds of new generations. In 2003, Timbro founded the Sture Academy, a one-year educational program for young men and women in their early twenties. The program takes its name from Sture Eskilsson, who in the early 1970s created a blueprint for a freer Sweden. Eskilsson's effort led to the founding of Timbro in 1978.

The world has undergone enormous change over the past 30 years, but our core mission remains firm.

About Timbro | Timbro
 

Neomalthusian

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
10,466
Reaction score
3,092
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Surprisingly, you seem to have overstated my goal, which is simply to provide temporary assistance to individuals who have fallen on hard times.

Agreed, and that's something we can continue to address. But I would not throw out the baby with the bath water.

That's a classic dodge. "Yes, and we must continue to address that." Meaning continue not addressing it while agreeing it needs to be addressed. Politicians do this very well, because that is all their job really is. Saying things just like that. The issue [of temporary welfare becoming less-temporary] is only addressed by cutting (off) people's welfare benefits. I bet no one left of center would dare suggest such a thing. Just think of all the people that would be forced to beg in the streets....
 

Patrickt

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
3,595
Reaction score
1,096
Location
Oaxaca, Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Of course, entitlements are not intended to get people out of poverty. Most are intended to make sure that they, and their children and grandchildren stay poor. Yes, some make sure they get fed and housed so they can vote but get educated, be raised in a family and learn to lead a family, move up and out of poverty? No, that's not what it's for. It is to maintain permanent poverty.
 
Last edited:

RadicalModerate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
2,603
Location
Golden City of the Risen Dead
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
it's the reality of what happens :shrug:

What entitlements, specifically? It's easy to lump them all together, but they are not all the same. Are we talking about state entitlements or federal? I really don't think Social Security and Medicaid "keeps people poor", but certainly other programs, such as public housing blocs have had the opposite of the intended effect. So let's clear up which ones we are speaking about specifically.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What entitlements, specifically? It's easy to lump them all together, but they are not all the same. Are we talking about state entitlements or federal? I really don't think Social Security and Medicaid "keeps people poor", but certainly other programs, such as public housing blocs have had the opposite of the intended effect. So let's clear up which ones we are speaking about specifically.

social security isn't really an entitlement, since most people have actually paid into the system.
 

RadicalModerate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
2,603
Location
Golden City of the Risen Dead
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
social security isn't really an entitlement, since most people have actually paid into the system.

Well, lots of people consider that to be an entitlement, but that's really just a matter of opinion whether it is or not.

But which ones specifically are you addressing when you say they tend to keep people poor?
 
Last edited:

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
social security isn't really an entitlement, since most people have actually paid into the system.

I would like to believe that. It's not supposed to be an entitlement, it is supposed to be old age insurance, just like insurance purchased from a private company, but I feel like somewhere along the way things kind of got muddled from the origional intent.

Since the gov has been utilizing social security revenue, as if it was money available in the general fund to pay for just anything, the social security tax has effectively become no different than income tax or gas tax or cigerette tax. And since our govenment is at liberty to change the deal, whenever they want to, just like they are at liberty to fund the military more or less or the department of education more or less, social security has sort of become just another government program. The distinction between an "at will" government program and a contract has been seriously blurred. It's not like as individuals we have any right to sue the government for breach of contract like we would have had if it was a private company that we were purchasing old age insurance from.

At this point, for all practical purposes, the tax is equivalent to a regressive income tax, and the benefits are essentially an entitlement. It's a sad situation.
 

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, lots of people consider that to be an entitlement, but that's really just a matter of opinion whether it is or not.

But which ones specifically are you addressing when you say they tend to keep people poor?

SS is an entitlement, by definition, insofar as it is not discretionary spending. That's what entitlement means.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
SS is an entitlement, by definition, insofar as it is not discretionary spending. That's what entitlement means.

that's just stupid. anything that is not discretionary spending is an entitlement? oh really..... :lamo
 

Patrickt

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
3,595
Reaction score
1,096
Location
Oaxaca, Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't accept "unintended consequences" when only an idiot could not anticipate the consequences. And, after fifty years, the consequences are quite clear, aren't they. The number one cause of death of young black men, homicide. We don't even discuss that. Liberals don't care. The high school drop out rate for black males should be a national disgrace but they don't mind that either.

It's rather like a drunken driver whining, "But, I didn't mean to kill him."
 

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
that's just stupid. anything that is not discretionary spending is an entitlement? oh really..... :lamo

Uh, yes, that is what the word means in this context. Per Merriam-Webster: "a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract."

Of course there are other definitions to entitlement, which is how the easily confused sometimes become confused by it.
 

shintao

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
994
Reaction score
195
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just saw on tv that the poverty level in 1965 was 14.3%. Today's poverty level is 14%. So, after trillions of dollars spent on entitlements, they don't help the poor get out of poverty. All they do is maintain the poor under the Democrat's wings during elections. Democrats don't care about u, they just use it as a gimmick for your vote.

That sounds about right on. Until you decide to work on the Capitalist cast aways, don't count on anything changing. Republicans are the reason, always squeezing the minority like a sponge to get that last drop of profits.
 

RadicalModerate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
2,603
Location
Golden City of the Risen Dead
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I would think an uninteded consequence. I'm not big on conspiracy theories.

Nor am I. That's partially the reason I'm asking that question; it seems some far on the right see social programs as a measured attempt to keep black folks poor and to keep them voting Democratic as a political output of their poverty. I don't buy that one bit. The main reason being politicans aren't nearly forward thinking enough to put that kind of long-term plan into action and keep it going until the supposed desired result is achieved.

I completely understand maintained poverty as an unintended consequence of social programs, on the other hand. Again, I revisit the issue of public housing in the United States. That is a failed social experiment to alleviate poverty, by any measure.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,650
Reaction score
37,794
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just saw on tv that the poverty level in 1965 was 14.3%. Today's poverty level is 14%. So, after trillions of dollars spent on entitlements, they don't help the poor get out of poverty. All they do is maintain the poor under the Democrat's wings during elections. Democrats don't care about u, they just use it as a gimmick for your vote.

no, entitlements as they are currently structured do little to actually help the poor.

there was impressive advancement made with welfare reform in the 90's, and that did help some, but when it comes to long term wealth building?

which is why we need to alter the structure of the entitlements so that any low-income worker can retire financially independent.
 

Camlon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
567
Location
Oslo, Norway
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
anyone care to guess what most of the countries that are doing better than the US all have in common?

Iceland
Norway
Switzerland
Denmark
Netherlands
Sweden

Based on what I hear from the right those are socialist liberal hell-holes. So I'm assuming it has something to do with that?

It's always funny how little some Americans know about Europe. Europe is diverse, and certinally not socialist. One of these countries are more economically free than the US. That is Switzerland, and they are also the best performing country in Europe. I'm not counting Norway or Luxembourg, because Norway is rich due to oil and Luxembourg because it is a business hub for Europe.

Why do most countries in Europe have lower poverty rates then America. Mostly because of demographics. For instance take a look at non-western immigrants in Sweden. Unemployment is about 15%, participitation rate is much lower American minorities (50%) and poverty rate is at Americans levels. Also, in general Europe got higher unemployment than the US.

Do entitlements help the poor get out of poverty? Some programs do, some don't. The problem is, US is not focusing on the programs who do.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom