• 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?

VanceMack said:
Natural Selection says what? :lamo
Click to expand...
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.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fail? What does "fail" mean in an evolutionary sense? Are you sure you're not making some sort of morality judgment?

VanceMack said:
Thems what shouldnt be procreating are doing it like bunnies.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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:
RadicalModerate said:
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?
Click to expand...

nah, they'd die off in a few months
 


timbro:


About Timbro | Timbro
 
AdamT said:
Surprisingly, you seem to have overstated my goal, which is simply to provide temporary assistance to individuals who have fallen on hard times.
Click to expand...

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

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....
 
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:
OscarB63 said:
it's the reality of what happens :shrug:
Click to expand...

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.
 
OscarB63 said:
social security isn't really an entitlement, since most people have actually paid into the system.
Click to expand...

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:
OscarB63 said:
social security isn't really an entitlement, since most people have actually paid into the system.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RadicalModerate said:
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?
Click to expand...

SS is an entitlement, by definition, insofar as it is not discretionary spending. That's what entitlement means.
 
AdamT said:
SS is an entitlement, by definition, insofar as it is not discretionary spending. That's what entitlement means.
Click to expand...

that's just stupid. anything that is not discretionary spending is an entitlement? oh really..... :lamo
 
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."
 
OscarB63 said:
that's just stupid. anything that is not discretionary spending is an entitlement? oh really..... :lamo
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
imagep said:
I would think an uninteded consequence. I'm not big on conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…