As much as I would like to, in my heart of hearts, believe that the effects of poverty are deleterious to society, to such an extent that it is worth alleviating to the greatest extent possible (providing food, shelter, clothing, medicines and other “necessities.”), I must also be open to the possibility that the cost to resolving these issues would not lead to a net benefit for society, for whatever reason.
This seems to be the only argument for not addressing, with the utmost focus and to our best ability, the problem of poverty in the U.S. and elsewhere. I’m curious if there are valid arguments out there for why, for instance, our ROI from the war in Iraq is better than investment in anti-poverty programs.
K: our responses are driven by our assumptions…we assume that X, Y and Z are the
correct answers without actually getting into the situation…
yes, purpose does play a role, but it is only one possibility…
we can work it out from several different possibilities…
where do we start from? do we start from a religious understanding or
do we start from a secular standpoint. For example, do we assume
that there is a god… do we assume there is no god… from this very basic
assumption we can derive several different understandings…
for example, if there is a god, let god take care of those in need or in poverty…
or we can take the St. Francis example and hold that if we cannot cloth those
in the world who are without, then we in solidarity, go without clothes ourselves…
what is the relationship between people? are we all related going back to Adam?
are we brothers and sisters going back to the bible? Are we simple people
who happen to live and work near each other? and what connects us is god?
or, or are we related animals that have evolved over the millions of years and in doing so,
we are not distant cousins, but we are related as brothers and sisters?
if we go back far enough, we become closer and closer in our relationship…
and if we go back far enough, at one time, there were only 3000 humans
on planet earth… everyone on earth comes from one of those 3000 people
and their is evidence that around 80,000 years ago, there was but one person
everyone on planet earth is descended from, they call her, surprisingly enough, Eve…
we human beings are descendants from a small group of people who lived around 70 or 80
thousand years ago…
if we begin here, where we are closely related to each other, as we are, then
we cannot allow people to go hungry or be in poverty…that would be no different
then allowing my own brother to be in poverty or one of my sisters to be in poverty…
but then ask yourself, what kind of hatred or anger would let me keep my brother or
sisters to live in poverty? so the starting point is just as important as the final purpose…
then we arrive at the question of, what is the meaning or point of existence?
if the point of existence is as the conservative paints it, then its every man/human being for
themselves… we have no obligation or allegiance to anyone else outside of ourselves…
and should we have a family, then we extend that allegiance to the “immediate family”
and not outside of that immediate family…
but I hold as do most liberals, that we are not islands unto ourselves…
we cannot, cannot survive without the help that comes from a society,
help that comes from a village of individuals who pitch together and
helps everyone, everyone regardless of their individual story…
it takes a village is the story of the liberal
and rugged individualism is the story of the conservative…
so if it takes a village, then every single person who is suffering is
damaging to a village… for a village to stay strong and healthy, then
we must help every single person in that village, regardless of how we may
or may not feel about them personally…
I am quite happy that my taxes go to help people in need and people who are down
and out… I am willing to pay to help people because I hold all people, even those
I don’t like… (looking at you UR and observ) and I am willing to help even you out…
because if one person is in poverty and suffering, that means it damages the society
and the village we all live in…
my mom likes to say this:
we have a moral obligation to help people who are struggling even if they
don’t want to be helped…
we have a moral obligation…and in the end, it turns into a moral question…
that I cannot justify anyone being in poverty, (well maybe IQ45 I can justify)
but I can’t justify anyone else being in poverty…poverty is bad for the country as
it is bad for me personally…
and if Biden raises my taxes to feed and clothe the millions who are in poverty,
I am ok with that… but to take my taxes and give them to the wealthy as tax cuts,
that pisses me off… because why is my money going to those who have enough
wealth to leave generations of their family in wealth…
but this becomes another question…
what are the values we wish to support by our political system, by
our political choices and by our choices of where we put our collective money into…
I don’t dismiss the importance of these questions, but I fear it misses the point of my inquiry (and that is undoubtedly due to my lack of clarity).
To put it another way, imagine USA (or Canada, UK, etc.), was able to provide adequate food, shelter, and clothing to all easily and efficiently, at no cost. I assume, for the most part, this would eliminate homelessness, food insecurity, and provide all people with the basic essentials. Would these countries notice any beneficial changes as a result?
I understand that “our” decision (i.e. the U.S. gubberment’s decision) to go to war as opposed to, say, rebuilding infrastructure and focusing our attention on quality of education for all citizens, is based on different sets of priorities and values.
But I would imagine the Conservative counterargument is deeper than that. It seems too callous to just openly admit (even if true) that our disregard for alleviating poverty is simply due to whimsy. I think there are other counter-arguments (i.e. it is just too expensive: who would pay for it?). And this is where it seems the question of: “How bad is poverty for society?” seems like an important and relevant one to answer, to perform a “cost benefit analysis.”
I can’t imagine that anything is for free - especially all that you proposed - and THAT is at the core of the issue - who is actually going to pay for those “no cost” benefits? That is what will determine if anyone is better off and who is better off within the country involved. With the US now offering everyone to come and get “free” benefits - the US will simply die - no one benefits other than those who invested outside the US - the ultra-wealthy.
Thanks for the response. I know this is only hypothetical, a thought experiment at best, but let me extrapolate for a moment. Assume that we don’t completely annihilate ourselves (perhaps something else that is difficult to imagine!), and technology continues to progress.
It doesn’t seem unfeasible that we already have the raw resources to provide food, clothing, and shelter for all homeless U.S. citizens, it seems more likely to be profit motive. Perhaps leaps in AI and quantum computing lead to advances in distribution that allows for almost zero food waste, as excess food is redirected to the food insecure. Perhaps leaps in automation allow enormous housing complexes to be built within days that could house tens of thousands, and it could be replicated all over the country. Perhaps much of the funding could come from ending the Forever Wars the U.S. finds itself regularly engaged in. I’m sure taxation on the 0.1%, and an overhaul in tax code (simplify, close loopholes) would help fill in the gaps.
But let’s suppose you’re right, and that today it would cost “X” dollars to complete this objective. I have a follow-up question: what would “X” have cost in 1969? Has the cost of “X” gone up, down, or remained stationary? There should be some calculatable ballpark figure based for initial and ongoing costs. Logic seems to dictate it should have gone down quite substantially.
There are obvious costs with building living complexes and providing food, clothes, and basic living necessities to all individuals.
There are costs associated with poverty too. If poor individuals receive worse education, they will be less prepared for or capable of high-skill labor, making America less competitive on the global stage. There are costs associated with theft, drug use, additional law enforcement in low income areas, etc., that would likely be alleviated with securing basic needs for all individuals. If an individual cannot afford to live on minimum wage paid by a company, the taxpayer still foots the bill for the difference.
Today consumerism is being used as a firebox to drive an engine that feeds more people into the firebox. That is a completely different paradigm from how you are thinking about it.
People are the fuel to be used up - not the building blocks to preserve and build up.
Trying to save wasted food is like trying to get that last once of heat from your exhaust pipe to feed the engine - the driver doesn’t care to try to pay for that - it makes far too little difference to the use of his car/train.
You are a commodity exactly like cattle - to be preserved ONLY for the purpose of using you up. That is what the social media and tele industry has arranged. They sell your “information” because that information is them used to acquire money from you (not necessarily labor). They don’t care how you got the money as long as it ends up in their hands.
That is why they are thrilled with the USA simply printing more money. It ends up being used by the “drivers of the train” putting on this show (and it is a theater - “the world is but a stage”) who live in China, Europe, Middle East, California (only vaguely associated with the USA) - the “Globalists”. They are vampiric. Mr Trump was fighting the greatest vampire to ever exist.
And that is what the eugenics priority is about - getting rid of the old and used up people (decrepit, drugged out, or homeless - diseases that attack the old and weak) so that the younger, more naive, more energetic people can be tossed into the firebox and produce more money to drive the wealthy to be even more wealthy.
Rangers don’t try to save every cow until it dies of old age. They sell it at its prime and dispose of the waste.
The bottom line I guess is that cost (and worth) is based on usefulness to the money/power gorging extremely wealthy.
Sure you can. Cost of labor + cost of materials. We often put estimates on weapons and warfare before pouring trillions of dollars into them, I would like to see the estimates as they relate to solving for poverty, specifically food, housing, clothes, and medical necessities. What would it cost in labor? Materials? Ongoing maintenance? Cost of food / week? I just would like to see some numbers jotted on paper, I’m sure somebody has done it.
And I get your point about the firebox, but that is a larger problem with capitalism writ large that I really don’t have a solution for.
It doesn’t have anything particularly to do with capitalism - it is Opportunism.
And my point was that it is the cost of getting people to give you their money that overrides all costs relating to materials and labor. The money is being made by selling people’s money - not their labor - not any material.
A government hands out “free” money to poor people so those people can be sold to use by taking that money away from them by having them “consume” items they don’t actually need and items that will shortly have to be replaced.
So it becomes important to keep people poor, confused, and in need of money.
It wouldn’t make a dent - for a couple of reasons.
First, the entire world of poor people would flood the country - because it had no defense and was giving things away for “free” (“open borders” - “universal health” - “universal education” - “universal legal assistance” - “food stamps” - “no ID citizenship requirements to vote”). So already it would no longer even be a country - just a cesspool of freeloaders.
But then there is the issue of run away inflation - when the money they have becomes almost worthless and the GDP is stagnate if not dropping.
Because everyone has “free money” the prices of everything goes up - why not. People spend more to get less. And where is that money going? It goes to those who inspire people to give it up. First on that list is – wait for it – * TAXES. The government now “has to” dramatically raise taxes to compensate for how much it is “giving away”.
A large portion of that money gets sent back to relatives in foreign countries - why not.
Then in the scheme of usurping wealth is the advertisers. Advertisers take a huge portion of the cost of selling - why not.
The products that are purchased are made in foreign countries - because in foreign countries people have to work for their living - they have jobs making the somewhat worthless things that the cesspool of consumers give them money to make - that they spend in their own country.
The vast majority of spending ends up being on entertainment - producing nothing. Why? Because the consumers don’t have anything to do but play and trip out on drugs - their needs are already met.
The other countries where people earn their money have more respect for their money so they spend it more wisely - on their needs. The cesspool is filed with people who lose all sight of their needs as they mindlessly and irresponsibly throw their free money in any tempting direction. They become not only wasteful but incompetent. They forget how to actually accomplish anything.
As other countries become more wealthy from the foolish country’s “free money” program - the “free money” country gets proportionally poorer - requiring even more “free money” for its inhabitants.
Crime dramatically increases as discipline and self-worth falls. And where are the defunded police? The remaining police actually need high crime so as to pay for all their extra equipment (purchased from foreign countries).
Attorneys get a large portion because suing people is easy when everyone has the money to spend and nothing else to do.
With the competition from other countries the free money country becomes uncompetitive so they can’t sell anything to other countries other than their willingness to spend. They become the victims of the vampires until they die - sooner than normal.
No longer being able to take care of themselves - the cost of healthcare - especially mental healthcare rises. But doctors know to not actually cure anything because they need that money from the sickly patients in order to buy the ever more expensive things and pay those advertisers and attorneys.
And then we can’t leave out the insurance companies making sure the cost and pricing is properly controlled - but producing nothing but profit.
I could probably go on but the bottom line is that the country becomes nothing but people taking money away from other people - consumers and vampires - producing nothing and eventually dying out - all used up by the other countries not so foolish (which was the whole intention all along).