Poverty is due to moral lacking

[DuncanONeil]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

Gravity is a theory!!

So the answer to your question is, no. Besides the "problem" with "economic developments" was in fact Government intrusion in the first place!

[denuseri]

Poverty has many causes. Morals do not determine personal responsibility. Being born dirt poor and doing nothing to improve it means that it will continue for that person. Education is available to anyone in this country - legal resident or illegal. Why do specific groups in this country refuse to take advantage of it? Washington, DC schools are the highest funded in the country; clear evidence that more money is not the answer. Conservatives (as compared to Republicans) desire less government, lower taxes. I fail to understand how taking LESS from some one -rich, middle class or poor - provides the resources to "give" to some one else. Large government sucks capital out of the economy to dole it out to those areas to maintain dependence on large government. The Soviet system demonstrated how well central planning and government intrusion doesn't work. The larger the government, the less effective it will be. The entire system of our representative republic was designed to keep it small and let the state and local governments deal with regional and local problems. Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results. Monopolies - especially through governmental intrusion into the marketplace - will stifle competition and improvement. Some regulation to prevent abuse is necessary. The problem is that most regulation is aimed not at preventing abuse within the system but at controlling the system and giving favor to one portion over another. The current liberal attitude is to seek equality of outcomes; something that is impossible, rather than equality of opportunity; which is how our country was designed.

That's the best response yet imho!

[lucy]

But in scientific terms (and yes, economics is a science, if not a rigid one) a theory is a model of reality. It explains what can be shown to be true, and predicts new facts which may not yet be understood.

Not in this case. In this case, we tried to model reality according to the theories. Well, not we, since I didn't ....

The problem with economic theories as I see them is that they rely on the actions of people, which is a very difficult thing to model. And in the modern world, with almost instantaneous communications and global markets, the problems are multiplied exponentially. When you add in government interference, the results become completely unpredictable. The models might work, on a small scale, but be completely useless once government regulations alter the playing field.

Sorry, but in recent years it was the economists who dictated the rules, the politicians just followed them blindly. It really wasn't the other way round. At least that's the impression I got here.

[lucy]

Gravity is a theory!!

So the answer to your question is, no. Besides the "problem" with "economic developments" was in fact Government intrusion in the first place!

Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

[Thorne]

Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

Not quite! The theory doesn't WORK, it EXPLAINS! Gravity worked long before there were any theories about it.

But just imagine what would happen if, for example, scientists discovered that gravity depended upon a certain number of people spending a certain amount of their money over a certain period of time. As long as those conditions persisted, gravity worked. Then, along comes some idiot movie/sports star and says that, no, people would be better off if they spent MORE money, faster. Suddenly gravity no longer works! The theory may be sound, but the application of the theory has been sidetracked.

This is kind of what happens with economic theory. Under the right conditions, those theories will explain what's happening. But when conditions are altered, generally by some pretty face, or a politician, or any of a number of absolutely inane possibilities, the theories can no longer be used as models. So the economists say, given a population of X, which has a disposable income of Y, performing Z actions will help the economy improve. Politicians say, great! Let's do that, and pass the required laws. Along with new tax laws, and new spending bills, and more appropriations, all of which alter the value of Y, making the whole equation worthless.

[StrictMasterD]

"One of the underlying threads of conservative thought is that the rich are inherently hard working and “earn” their good fortune, and the poor almost always are poor due to some sort of moral lacking."

"This is the assumption that makes the right believe that most people on welfare, on unemployment, using food stamps or other government aid must be lazy, or lacking in courage, determination or pride. No one “needs” government assistance because they should be able to care for themselves, and a “handout” just makes them try even less."

"It’s usually not discussed publicly in so many words, even though that’s what many believe. But David French of the National Review Online doesn’t have any qualms about coming right out and voicing it himself:

"It is simply a fact that our social problems are increasingly connected to the depravity of the poor. If an American works hard, completes their education, gets married, and stays married, then they will rarely — very rarely — be poor. At the same time, poverty is the handmaiden of illegitimacy, divorce, ignorance, and addiction. As we have poured money into welfare, we’ve done nothing to address the behaviors that lead to poverty while doing all we can to make that poverty more comfortable and sustainable.""

(Italics are mine.)

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/conserva...#ixzz1XRnZONUW

I don't think it is specifically a political view, but probably also a world-view shared by many, which is why I put it here.

What do you think? What exactly causes poverty?

I take exception o this, I worked my entire life, I paid into the system for over 40 years
I am now disabled, unable medicaly to work, yes I recieive Socialy Security Disability and Assistance from my state for Food, but I EARNED the right to do so, I have never not worked becuse I am or was Lazy, I am under the careof Docotors
So please do not say those who live "off the Goverment" are lazy, mos tof us are not I paid inot the system and are simply getting back what I paid in FICA Taxes for over 40 years,yes there are some out that that are lazy, that find it easier to live off the system but please do not say ALL those ho recieive Social Secirty Diability, or Retirment Pay or Food Stamps are lazy, not having been in that situation you can not place everyone who is in the same boat
That is tenamount to sayig all people of a certain Ethnicity are bad because of a few select one,s not ALL whitesae bad, not all Blacks are bad not ALL Muslims are Radical lke those responsable for 911
Base pepole on who they are and not the class or Ethnicity they come from

[DuncanONeil]

Alright then Global Warming is a theory!

Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

[DuncanONeil]

All theories are subject to testing!

Not quite! The theory doesn't WORK, it EXPLAINS! Gravity worked long before there were any theories about it.

But just imagine what would happen if, for example, scientists discovered that gravity depended upon a certain number of people spending a certain amount of their money over a certain period of time. As long as those conditions persisted, gravity worked. Then, along comes some idiot movie/sports star and says that, no, people would be better off if they spent MORE money, faster. Suddenly gravity no longer works! The theory may be sound, but the application of the theory has been sidetracked.

This is kind of what happens with economic theory. Under the right conditions, those theories will explain what's happening. But when conditions are altered, generally by some pretty face, or a politician, or any of a number of absolutely inane possibilities, the theories can no longer be used as models. So the economists say, given a population of X, which has a disposable income of Y, performing Z actions will help the economy improve. Politicians say, great! Let's do that, and pass the required laws. Along with new tax laws, and new spending bills, and more appropriations, all of which alter the value of Y, making the whole equation worthless.

[DuncanONeil]

Although you "paid" in you didn't really "earn" anything for those payments. Since you were not really buying something, you were being taxed by the Government to fund a benefit program.

I take exception o this, I worked my entire life, I paid into the system for over 40 years
I am now disabled, unable medicaly to work, yes I recieive Socialy Security Disability and Assistance from my state for Food, but I EARNED the right to do so, I have never not worked becuse I am or was Lazy, I am under the careof Docotors
So please do not say those who live "off the Goverment" are lazy, mos tof us are not I paid inot the system and are simply getting back what I paid in FICA Taxes for over 40 years,yes there are some out that that are lazy, that find it easier to live off the system but please do not say ALL those ho recieive Social Secirty Diability, or Retirment Pay or Food Stamps are lazy, not having been in that situation you can not place everyone who is in the same boat
That is tenamount to sayig all people of a certain Ethnicity are bad because of a few select one,s not ALL whitesae bad, not all Blacks are bad not ALL Muslims are Radical lke those responsable for 911
Base pepole on who they are and not the class or Ethnicity they come from

[Thorne]

Alright then Global Warming is a theory!

Well, technically, Global Warming is a fact, just like Gravity and Evolution. The MECHANISMS of global warming, or evolution, or gravity, are theories.

[Thorne]

All theories are subject to testing!

Not necessarily. From a book I'm reading: "... only that which is experimentally observed, or that which can be logically connected to experimental observation, has any reality."
There are some things which cannot, yet, be directly observed. They can be logically deduced, based on other observations, but not measured directly. A black hole is a perfect example. We cannot see what happens inside the event horizon, but by observing effects OUTSIDE, scientists can deduce what is happening inside. They can then predict OTHER effects which SHOULD happen if their hypotheses are right, and if those effects are observed the theory is strengthened.

[Thorne]

Although you "paid" in you didn't really "earn" anything for those payments. Since you were not really buying something, you were being taxed by the Government to fund a benefit program.

I have always looked at it more as a forced savings account, which is more or less what it was intended to be. The actuality? Far different, sadly.

[StrictMasterD]

Although you "paid" in you didn't really "earn" anything for those payments. Since you were not really buying something, you were being taxed by the Government to fund a benefit program.

Yes I earned the righttheright to get my benefits that come with the FICA Tax Deduction, my point was simply oto say that some peoplewho recieive Socialy Security, Food Stamps Legitmately get them, and itis not a case of them or me justbeing LAZYand not wanting to work
If you invest in a Comay by buying stock inthem, you haveearned theright to the divident you get back
But to say those wgho reveivie Siclay Security or Food Stampsare simply to lazyto work, I find that very wrong, I worked my entire life well over 40 years
Yes I did buy someting, i bough the righ to have Medical Insurance when I stopped working, by my FICA Dedcution weekly
My FICA decition was to insure I recieived money when I did stop working, like if you buy an insurance policy through and insurance company, say auto insurance, you pay a semi annual premium forthat you gt into a car accidfent, you pay the deductable buttheinsurance company pays most of thecostofrepairs, my FICA paymeny insures me the say righ,ti can't wrok i go to my "Insurance Polivy" via my FICA paymentys and they pay for what i need to me Scialy Swecirty and my FICA paymentst are no different then the premium you pay for health, auto or life insurance,

[StrictMasterD]

Yes I earned the righttheright to get my benefits that come with the FICA Tax Deduction, my point was simply oto say that some peoplewho recieive Socialy Security, Food Stamps Legitmately get them, and itis not a case of them or me justbeing LAZYand not wanting to work
If you invest in a Comay by buying stock inthem, you haveearned theright to the divident you get back
But to say those wgho reveivie Siclay Security or Food Stampsare simply to lazyto work, I find that very wrong, I worked my entire life well over 40 years
Yes I did buy someting, i bough the righ to have Medical Insurance when I stopped working, by my FICA Dedcution weekly
My FICA decition was to insure I recieived money when I did stop working, like if you buy an insurance policy through and insurance company, say auto insurance, you pay a semi annual premium forthat you gt into a car accidfent, you pay the deductable buttheinsurance company pays most of thecostofrepairs, my FICA paymeny insures me the say righ,ti can't wrok i go to my "Insurance Polivy" via my FICA paymentys and they pay for what i need to me Scialy Swecirty and my FICA paymentst are no different then the premium you pay for health, auto or life insurance,

Corrrct and that Benefit Program that I HELPED fun I am now using

[DuncanONeil]

I was going to say AGW but thought the meaning would be lost!

Well, technically, Global Warming is a fact, just like Gravity and Evolution. The MECHANISMS of global warming, or evolution, or gravity, are theories.

[DuncanONeil]

Factually true I agree. But this could be considered a form of testing.

Not necessarily. From a book I'm reading: "... only that which is experimentally observed, or that which can be logically connected to experimental observation, has any reality."
There are some things which cannot, yet, be directly observed. They can be logically deduced, based on other observations, but not measured directly. A black hole is a perfect example. We cannot see what happens inside the event horizon, but by observing effects OUTSIDE, scientists can deduce what is happening inside. They can then predict OTHER effects which SHOULD happen if their hypotheses are right, and if those effects are observed the theory is strengthened.

[DuncanONeil]

Agreed! Which is why there is always an argument. What it IS vs What was INTENDED. Seems like there is a party that wants credit, and to be the "good guys", based on what they intended to do rather then what they accomplish.

I have always looked at it more as a forced savings account, which is more or less what it was intended to be. The actuality? Far different, sadly.

[DuncanONeil]

Yes I did buy someting, i bough the righ to have Medical Insurance when I stopped working, by my FICA Dedcution weekly

No! You did not buy anything. Your were taxed to fund a Government benefit program!

[DuncanONeil]

my FICA paymentst are no different then the premium you pay for health, auto or life insurance,

Again with those other things you actually have a vested interest in them. With SS you do not have any interest in it at all.

Can you will you SS benefits to your heirs?

[DuncanONeil]

Responding to your own posts???

Corrrct and that Benefit Program that I HELPED fun I am now using

[Thorne]

I was going to say AGW but thought the meaning would be lost!

Yes, AGW is a theory: which means there is ample evidence for it. It explains that evidence better than any other speculation by deniers. While it is not the ONLY mechanism driving climate change, it is currently the best explanation for the data being found. Unlike the idiotic rationalizations thrown out by deniers, especially the "God will protect us" group, like Perry and Bachmann.

[DuncanONeil]

Sorry but I don't think the evidence supports this theory in the least. Think it more hubris than science.

Yes, AGW is a theory: ... While it is not the ONLY mechanism driving climate change, it is currently the best explanation for the data being found.

[Thorne]

Sorry but I don't think the evidence supports this theory in the least. Think it more hubris than science.

Well, when 98%+ of the CLIMATE scientists (You know, those people who actually STUDY the science) tells you that AGW is the most likely culprit, I'd have to say that they have way more credibility than all the talk-radio hosts and Fox News talking heads out there. When the doctor says you are sick, you don't go to an astrologer for a second opinion.

[StrictMasterD]

Responding to your own posts???

No to a reply to my post ,failed to put their quote in sorry

[lucy]

Well, when 98%+ of the CLIMATE scientists (You know, those people who actually STUDY the science) tells you that AGW is the most likely culprit, I'd have to say that they have way more credibility than all the talk-radio hosts and Fox News talking heads out there. When the doctor says you are sick, you don't go to an astrologer for a second opinion.

No, the real stupid ones go to an astrologer or even a haruspex and never visit the doc in the first place. At least I wished that was the case since it would considerably lower the percentage of idiots.

[Thorne]

No, the real stupid ones go to an astrologer or even a haruspex and never visit the doc in the first place. At least I wished that was the case since it would considerably lower the percentage of idiots.

Yeah, we should probably let them promote homeopathy and all those other fake cures. At least it would help reduce the level of stupid in the world. Eventually.

[DuncanONeil]

But the issue is there is no assurance that number is correct. Also there was a point in time when all the appropriate scientist thought the earth was the center of the cosmos.

Well, when 98%+ of the CLIMATE scientists (You know, those people who actually STUDY the science) tells you that AGW is the most likely culprit, I'd have to say that they have way more credibility than all the talk-radio hosts and Fox News talking heads out there. When the doctor says you are sick, you don't go to an astrologer for a second opinion.

[DuncanONeil]

It just looked funny!

No to a reply to my post ,failed to put their quote in sorry

[Thorne]

But the issue is there is no assurance that number is correct. Also there was a point in time when all the appropriate scientist thought the earth was the center of the cosmos.

That's the great thing about science, though. The more we learn, the better our understanding of reality. Given the equipment (or lack of it) that scientists had to use, their observations were logical. Later study proved them wrong, so they revised their hypothesis. It was the conservative elements, mostly the Church, which resisted the reality.

The same holds true now. Maybe the numbers aren't correct, quite. Maybe this is a statistical anomaly. The thing is, though, that ALL of the numbers indicate that Global Warming is occurring, and most of the numbers show that mankind is playing a significant role. The only thing the deniers have to offer is their constant harping over repeatedly debunked claims. They have no evidence that the scientists are mistaken, or are misinterpreting. They only deny because of their "feelings". Led, again, by the conservatives for political reasons (big oil, anyone?) and by fundamentalists who don't believe their god will let them down.

[Snark]

I have always looked at it more as a forced savings account, which is more or less what it was intended to be. The actuality? Far different, sadly.

Unfortunately, many people have this misunderstanding. It was never intended, nor practiced as a forced savings account. It has always been a pay as you go collection and distribution system with no actual accounts assigned nor assets accumulated in any individual's name. There is no Social Security Trust account; it is simply a collection of Treasury Notes giving the SS system the right to retrieve the excess collections that the congress siphoned away. In its simplest terms it is a government operated Ponzi scheme. Always has been and will be until it is changed.