digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

A Dozen States are Taking the Lead on Poverty

spotlightonpoverty.org — New study highlights trend in a dozen states to focus political attention on poverty and calls on the next president to spotlight poverty and economic opportunity nationally.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • pentupentropy, on 04/17/2008, -1/+18I keep saying it... Read "In Praise of Idleness" by Bertrand Russell. You'll get a good view of not only how unnecessary poverty is and how easily it could be taken care of, but why the upper classes need it to exist.
  • notque, on 04/17/2008, -1/+14Convinced that the serious realization of liberty, justice, and peace will be impossible so long as the majority of the population remains dispossessed of elementary needs, so long as it is deprived of education and is condemned to political and social insignificance and slavery - in fact if not by law - by poverty as well as by the necessity of working without rest or leisure, producing all the wealth upon which the world now prides itself, and receiving in return only such a small pan thereof that it hardly suffices to assure its livelihood for the next day; - Bakunin
  • jforjools, on 04/17/2008, -0/+9Well, if we want a president who addresses real issues, we must continue to put pressure on the MSM to cover serious subjects.
    • nelsonjs, on 04/17/2008, -0/+8This is absolutely true. Especially so after the hideous display ABC put on with last night's debate.
  • cashman57, on 04/17/2008, -8/+5It is not the job of the president to eliminate poverty. We have seen a trillion dolars spent on the war on poverty and have more people in poverty now than when it began. Government puts roadblocks in the way of people who are trying to get out of poverty. I think this was addressed well in Dr. Mary Ruwart's book "Healing Our World"
    • nelsonjs, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5You apparently weren't paying attention during the Clinton administration.
      • cashman57, on 04/17/2008, -6/+3I was paying attention during theClintons presidency, and I don't see what that has to do with government getting in the way of people working their way out of poverty.
      • doctechnical, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Povery went away when Bill was in office?
    • notque, on 04/17/2008, -3/+7Government creates systems to keep people in poverty. Not roadblocks to get them out. Governments need to increase poverty because the poor must pay for the extravagances of the rich. Taxes go to pay other corporations to create things. Things we don't need. Things that may not even ever be used. Things we have no choice for. We don't get to decide to pay for a bridge to nowhere. We don't get to decide to go into Iraq.

      Governments are unjustified authority.
      • dshPls, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Are you an anarchist or a socialist? I'm seriously confused... You didn't cite any sources to prove "Governments need to increase poverty because the poor must pay for the extravagances of the rich." either.
  • ventsi, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4like it sounds interesting
  • notque, on 04/17/2008, -1/+11Our government ignores the poor population. Hiding unemployment statistics by not counting those that have given up. By taking tax money and putting it towards wars, and jobs for companies that give money to the people with the power to direct the cash.
  • youtellme8, on 04/17/2008, -0/+7Fighting poverty is both humanitarian aid for today and economic investment for tomorrow.
    • jforjools, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5It's also a huge investment in PEACE for tomorrow.
      • youtellme8, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4How could I have forgotten! Well put.
    • bosssmiley, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1So...all round good sense then?
      I suppose the hard part is knowing where to invest the aid money to get a decent return (aka, people raised from poverty), otherwise we'd have solved this long since.
  • 3tcp, on 04/18/2008, -4/+2I especially appreciate the focus on 'economic opportunity'. It seems like the only reason poverty is ever mentioned in politics is to justify redistribution schemes and shifting spending towards efforts that have already failed and won't fail less just because they get more money.
    The opportunity part is the key. Our education system is too inflexible to meet the needs of students. Teachers and parents don't have the power to fix problems until they spread to other schools. Union-negotiated contracts don't allow the kind of compensation schemes for teachers at poor schools that can reduce the teacher turnover that prevents bad schools from improving.
    Many programs meant to help the poor are set up so that the loss in benefits from working more provides a huge disincentive to work. People in poverty don't pay a lot of taxes but the loss of government provided benefits means that a large increase in the amount of time worked is a relatively small increase in their total income.
  • HardworkinJudy, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5Awesome discussion, now for some action. I am tired of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I have worked two and three jobs simultaneously my whole adult life - and I'm a grandmother.
    • dshPls, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2The truth is, you're not valuable in any high paying jobs. Or you haven't attempted to get such jobs. The burden is on you, not the government to solve your problems. The rich are getting richer because they're smarter, more creative and work alot harder than most people.
      • notque, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2And they take a percentage of the real productive work from others. Living off other peoples productive work.

        The poor are sick of giving charity to the rich.
      • nelsonjs, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1A basic understanding of world/american history would do you some good here.
  • BlindingDawn, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! "
    Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.
  • Paktu, on 04/18/2008, -3/+3You know, a lot of the same folks that understand that wars on "drugs" and "terrorism" don't work seem to forget that a war on poverty has also been tried (in the 1960s) and failed miserably.
    • notque, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3That's a right wing view, that matches Clinton's view during 1992 when he was running as a moderate right wing candidate. "Big Government doesn't work, the war on poverty doesn't work, we need to get out of the entitlement business."

      Well, government is mostly an entitlement business for corporations. The defense department is one big entitlement firm for corporations. The entire high tech industry is tax money taken from others, and put towards advances which are then given to companies to profit from.

      We pay for the tech, like the internet, and the patents are handed to corporations to profit off us again.

      Pretty easy to see some opportunities to end poverty the second you stop stealing from the poor multiple times to pay for the rich.

      Owners steal from the poor by taking the majority of the profits from their work. Then the government steals from the poor. Land Owners then charge them rent to exist, to sleep somewhere.

      The poor sustains the rich via effort. The rich are the idle workers producing nothing of value.

      So who is giving charity to who?
  • empirefalling, on 04/18/2008, -3/+3Socialism is the first step in eliminating poverty. Living in poverty is defined as one who is prevented from Basic Human needs and rights by those few who control wealth. Eliminating over production of goods and services and regulating such production would by far facilitate the eradication of wide spread poverty not only in the US but in other US dominated nations as well. Obama has similar goals in mind and must be elected leader of the US. The US must change.
  • OBDriftwood, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2You don't eliminate poverty by just giving people money.
    • notque, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2No, you also must change a structure that would allow poverty to continue. You must eliminate the system that allows poverty to flourish.

      Eliminate the system that allows one man to monopolize the wealth of 10 workers.
      • dshPls, on 04/18/2008, -2/+4So everyone is equal and the idiot is the same as the genius. No matter how good you are at your trade you get no reward for it. Sounds like a great idea to create productivity and innovation.
        • notque, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2That isn't what I said, I said eliminate the system that allows one man to monopolize the wealth of 10 workers.

          Why should one man who does no productive work make that of 10, or 100 workers? A 1000 workers.

          Why? Why should a C.E.O. make as much as 10,000 workers? A C.E.O. who does no productive work.
          • dshPls, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3Okay, so you're not entitled to run a business, who runs everything? Ah the government, that makes it better!

            You fail because you don't understand the meaning of the word "monopolize." That would imply they couldn't get jobs anywhere else. You're free to work where you choose or not.

            If you want the life of a CEO become one, don't bitch and moan like you deserve something for nothing. ***** entitlement.
          • doctechnical, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3You're still living with Mom and Dad, aren't you?
          • notque, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1@dshPls

            Yes, ***** entitlement. Why is a person who does no productive work, and holds on to the land by force be entitled to the profits of all the people who actually do the work. ***** entitlement!
          • dshPls, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Because they do work? They've established a business and fought competition to become large enough to support more employee's. You really have never worked have you? The boss does more work than the employee. The people don't have to work for the said business if they don't want to, you act like it's slave labor or something.
          • notque, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1"The boss does more work than the employee."

            It is slave labor. It's renting yourself to someone else to profit off the productive effort. it's called wage slavery, and the Republican party was against it. I'm in the mainstream for the Republican Party when Lincoln was elected on the platform of removing wage slavery and chattel slavery.
          • vault, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2you have pretty unrealistic expectations for the world, notque.

            Fighting poverty is one thing and a noble goal...turning capitalism on its head is just being immature and overly idealistic and most people get over that. I bet in 20 years you will be wearing a cardigan, reading Grover Norquist, and be voting Republican.

            (Norquist has a new book out, btw...open your mind and check it out unless you're scared that he might be right..no pun intended)
          • notque, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1It isn't idealistic or immature. It has worked on this earth. I will never get over freedom and democracy.
          • vault, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2You have freedom and democracy now. No one's saying it's perfect but it's there.

            In a communist country, you wouldn't have the freedom to start your own business, if you studied hard and worked hard, you'd make the same money as someone who just sat around and half-worked. Would you really want that?
          • vault, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1http://www.amazon.com/Leave-Us-Alone-Getting-Gover ...
  • notque, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4"This is the secret of wealth ; find the starving and destitute, pay them half a crown, and make them produce ten schillings worth in the day, amass a fortune by the means, and then increase it by some lucky hit, made with help of the State." - Kropotkin
  • empirefalling, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2The US must change it's economic and social system from waste and want to progress and fulfillment. From racism and bigotry to Equality and Rights.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.