51–60 of 131 posts
Our military budget is substantially larger today than it was when we were actively engaged in both Iraq and Afghanistan just a few short years ago Our military budget will soon pass $1 trillion annually Our elected representatives now routinely provide the Pentagon with more money than it even requests Every NYTimes article on Ukraine is riddled with comments suggesting we provide a blank check for weaponry The Wash…
> The deregulation of the banking system in the 1980s heightened competition among banks. Many responded by raising fees and requiring customers to carry minimum balances. In 1977, over a third of banks offered accounts with no service charge. By the early 1990s, only 5 percent did. I would think that increased competition would improve conditions for customers?
> I would think that increased competition would improve conditions for customers? It did improve conditions for customers! As an example I currently bank with Ally, free checking account, no ATM fees (on any ATM, in/out network doesn't matter) and pretty sure they have good overdraft protection though I've never checked. Compare that to a place like BoA that has ATM fees, minimum account balances and fees, and while…
Being savvy is one of the ways that people can lift themselves out of poverty. Unfortunately, there is no way to force people to be savvy, and there is also no way to make regular banks be like savvy banks.
Despite absolute dollars per person spending increasing since the Reagan years, Americans remain in poverty because: 1. Raising health care costs 2. Very little poverty spending actually goes to the recipients' pockets 3. Decline of union membership 4. Home ownership is out of reach and the rent is too damn high 5. Banking is expensive for poor people Most of these issues can be traced back to corporate lobbying. The…
Eh... you have some valid points, but poverty has existed under every single policy regime so far. Ever. In history. So why should I accept that the root problem is bad policy instead of something else?
Reducing the U.S. military budget by 20% and spending it on poverty relief programs could eliminate poverty to a large degree in the U.S. (not entirely, but that's unrealistic). It's not that the government doesn't have the money or that we're not paying enough in taxes. It's that we're spending it on the wrong things (if we want to have a generally prosperous and stable society).
Look at San Francisco. Their homelessness budget is over $600 million a year, and yet, homelessness is the WORST its ever been. That's because homelessness "activists" keep the homeless as farm animals, living in homelessness without actually trying to help them elevate themselves. Look at the open drug markets and free access to drugs and needles they have. This is all to keep them enslaved in drugs and homeless without trying to help them.
Because if they solve the problem of homelessness, they won't have jobs anymore. They are like the pharmaceutical industry except at the grassroots level.
> The deregulation of the banking system in the 1980s heightened competition among banks. Many responded by raising fees and requiring customers to carry minimum balances. In 1977, over a third of banks offered accounts with no service charge. By the early 1990s, only 5 percent did. I would think that increased competition would improve conditions for customers?
Despite absolute dollars per person spending increasing since the Reagan years, Americans remain in poverty because: 1. Raising health care costs 2. Very little poverty spending actually goes to the recipients' pockets 3. Decline of union membership 4. Home ownership is out of reach and the rent is too damn high 5. Banking is expensive for poor people Most of these issues can be traced back to corporate lobbying. The…
Eh... you have some valid points, but poverty has existed under every single policy regime so far. Ever. In history. So why should I accept that the root problem is bad policy instead of something else?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/233910/poverty-rates-in-....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> data suggest that income inequality and marginalization are what cause those issues Being poor and downtrodden forces one to turn to street violence? Nonsense. Poor kids raised in cultures that value education and self-improvement are able to turn their lives around. Poor kids in cultures that value other things aren't, which obviously isn't the fault of the kids, but there is only so much the state can do to step…
Can you elaborate on what "cultures" don't value education and self-improvement?
Reducing the U.S. military budget by 20% and spending it on poverty relief programs could eliminate poverty to a large degree in the U.S. (not entirely, but that's unrealistic). It's not that the government doesn't have the money or that we're not paying enough in taxes. It's that we're spending it on the wrong things (if we want to have a generally prosperous and stable society).
No, it won't, assuming you're talking about existing programs. The current programs aren't designed to fix the problems the recipients face. They're merely designed to keep people alive (food, medical care, etc). They have absolutely nothing to do with getting those people jobs with pay high enough to exit the support system. Many of the people on those relief programs work, but simply don't make enough. So in that regard your last sentence allpies to your own statement: "It's that we're spending it on the wrong things".
The amount of single parent households has 5X'd since the 50s. The US now leads the world in this measure. This seems like such an obvious factor to leave out of an article like this. I have trouble believing it's not one of, if not the most important changes the US has gone through.
Or, you know, if we had any number of institutions in this country which are more common in the rest of the developed world, such as paid childcare and maternity leave, affordable healthcare and rent, real protections against discriminating on the basis of age&gender, etc.
Despite absolute dollars per person spending increasing since the Reagan years, Americans remain in poverty because: 1. Raising health care costs 2. Very little poverty spending actually goes to the recipients' pockets 3. Decline of union membership 4. Home ownership is out of reach and the rent is too damn high 5. Banking is expensive for poor people Most of these issues can be traced back to corporate lobbying. The…
Eh... you have some valid points, but poverty has existed under every single policy regime so far. Ever. In history. So why should I accept that the root problem is bad policy instead of something else?