http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=230x3572Hmmm.
One wonders where the bobbling primitive's been lately.
This is an old bonfire, but still burning.
Anyway.
patriotvoice (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-19-08 08:56 PM
Original message
Eliminating poverty.
I don't profess to know "the" way, let alone "a" way. But, I've had some ideas that I've posted in several places that I wanted to share as their own thread. First, Naturyl recently posted a call blahblahblahblahblah......
Da Fusa (45 posts) Tue Aug-19-08 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. self delete
Deleted, but the comment's in italics in the next comment:
patriotvoice (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-19-08 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Health care: yes. Utilities no.
that is absolutely the most stupid idea I think I've ever heard
seriously, the people who use health care and utilities least get to pay the most?
When you are healthy, you better be saving up your cash for when you are sick. Because you will be. Since this isn't a "savings" plan, you credit into the system when you can, and debit when you cannot.
The more utilities you consume, the higher you move in the consumption tiers. The higher the tier, the more the monthly payment. Families and energy wasters will pay the most. Singles and energy savers will pay the least.
The bobbling primitive:
bobbolink (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-20-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. You sound exactly like the ones who blamed the poor folk of NOLA for being stuck there.
I suggest you give some serious thought to where your heart and soul are.
sandnsea (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-19-08 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Uh, they did this in the Soviet Union
Or maybe you weren't aware. It doesn't work.
patriotvoice (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-19-08 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Not quite.
While a similar approach was taken, the Soviets spent enormously on the Cold War. I am very well aware that these ideas won't work unless military spending scales significantly back.
bobbolink (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-20-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. "(myself included) are suspicious of government "
We homeless people thank you libertarians for keeping us without a roof.
Really, we do thank you.
Cuz we know that you are working day and night to make sure we are housed without the effort of government.
Naturyl (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-22-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Good response, bobbolink.
I wasn't going to weigh in on this - and I'm still not, except to say that your response is in precisely the right tone.
Then, ten months later:
patriotvoice (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-25-09 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. My first reaction was frustration. So I stepped away for nearly a year and reflected.
I believe every human deserves sound shelter, quality food, appropriate health care, rewarding employment, and unfettered access to sources of learning. I do not believe the government is solely responsible for this common welfare; I believe it is also the responsibility of every citizen to provide for it through taxes or hands on experience. That means, for example, building or renovating houses; providing or preparing meals; serving as a medic or business owner; staffing a library.
I am a libertarian, only because I am not an authoritarian. I simultaneously believe everyone should have the freedom to guide their life as they see fit, while also believing that the citizenry and governments' responsibility is to provide fundamental services to those who ask for them. I specifically believe that a citizenry detached from the spending of its government is detached from the problems that government is trying to solve.
I do believe that any solution to this most heinous problem provides an opportunity for abuse. But, I do not believe that people are naturally abusive. I believe that, given the opportunity, most people want to be active: the question is simply in what way do they want to be active and how can we value that activity. Sometimes the value is monetary. Sometimes the value is cultural, as in providing art or raising healthy children.
I recognize that my solution isn't perfect, or a "be all end all" strategy. I had hoped there would be critical response to my post, ideas that would make it better by illuminating flaws, entertaining new ideas, and encouraging discussion. Some posters did respond with such critique. But others chose to lambast me personally. I decided then this forum wasn't right for me, that my efforts were, in fact, better spent in the real world.
There are a lot of smart people here, thinking critically about the problem. There are some here who live the problem daily. There are some here who work to ameliorate it. I hope we all see that commenting without moving us one step closer to a solution is just time wasted. And, I think we don't need to be wasting any more time -- I think we've spent enough time with this problem. It's time to fix it.
I dunno about that. Usually a pile of rocks has more brains than the primitives.
Karl_Bonner_1982 (700 posts) Wed Sep-03-08 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
12. Why don't we do what Sweden does?
Just give everyone a housing subsidy so that everyone has an easier time affording it. Of course there are no free lunches...but if you do it just right, you can effectively help ease the burden on the bottom 75 percent of income earners since only the relatively affluent will pay more in taxes than they get back in subsidies.
But due to our general aversion to really high tax rates, and since this thread is about the poor and not the true middle class, we could just offer graduated subsidies to the poor much like we do now through Section 8, only expand the program, make the subsidies more generous and broaden eligibility. Same goes for expanding food stamps - make them more generous, cover more people, and eliminate some of the red tape involved in applying for them and renewing them. We could take the program a step further by either fattening up the earned income tax credit or switching to a system of scaled hourly wage supplements - so that the people who get the most assistance are the ones working the longest hours at the lowest wages.
In addition, we need to take a more aggressive approach to geographical inequality of opportunity. Provide work relief programs to depressed inner cities and impoverished communities. This will help people acquire work skills where few are available, while at the same time putting purchasing power back into the local economy, both of which will help rebuild the economy. Add universal health care, and unionize Wal-Mart, and you've got yourself a society with drastically less poverty!
All of this will require more taxes. Waging peace, eliminating corporate welfare and ending marijuana prohibition will not be enough to cover the difference; some tax increases will be necessary. The goal should be to aim most of them at the upper 10 percent of income earners, while the remainder of the tax burden will be structured in such a way as to accomplish other incentive-based policies.
Oh my. More paradise-on-earth crap; we all know what happens.
