Get rid of the damn government and people would be able to provide for themselves without having to give away half and would not have to worry with no jobs available and the lazy people would have to work

 

Tommiecd you attempted to suggest that I have no idea of what i speak yet you had earlier described a part of my past as an example of the unheard from poor. I left my childhood home when I was 17 because the jobs dried up and the mines pulled out. Many people in my family lost their jobs and without a diploma I could not find a job to support myself.

I know more about the almshouses( poorfarms) than alot here do because I knew nothing less than being poor. You made the claim that I do not know what poverty is, yet you know not where I come from or what I have been through. Then you attempt to chide me for "a superior education", I did not graduate highschool because I had to work if I wanted to eat afetr my dad was laid off from the mines. I was 20 when I passed the test to get my GED, I know what it feels like to sit off to the side at work while others are eating lunches and my stomach is empty again.

But in order to give you a reference of the origins of the "poorhouse" system I will refer you to this.
*not_secure_link*www.poorhousestory.com/history.htm
WHAT WERE POORHOUSES?
*not_secure_link*www.poorhousestory.com/gold_line_hor.jpg
(often also called Poor Farms -- and several similar terms --
or referred to with the older term -- Almshouses)

Poorhouses were tax-supported residential institutions to which people were required to go if they could not support themselves. They were started as a method of providing a less expensive (to the taxpayers) alternative to what we would now days call "welfare" - what was called "outdoor relief" in those days. People requested help from the community Overseer of the Poor ( sometimes also called a Poor Master) - an elected town official. If the need was great or likely to be long-term, they were sent to the poorhouse instead of being given relief while they continued to live independently. Sometimes they were sent there even if they had not requested help from the Overseer of the Poor. That was usually done when they were found guilty of begging in public, etc.

[One misconception should be cleared up here; they were not technically "debtors' prisons." Someone could owe a great deal of money, but if they could still provide themselves with the necessities for remaining independent they might avoid the poorhouse.]

BEFORE POORHOUSES
*not_secure_link*www.poorhousestory.com/gold_line_hor.jpg

Prior to the establishment of poorhouses the problem of what to do with paupers in a community was dealt with in one of three ways:

1. Outdoor Relief provided through an Overseer of the Poor: When people fell upon hard times and members of their family, friends or members of their church congregations could not provide enough assistance to tide them over, they made application to an elected local official called the Overseer of the Poor. Within a budget of tax money, he might provide them with food, fuel, clothing, or even permission to get medical treatment to be paid out of tax funds.
   
   
2. Auctioning off the Poor: People who could not support themselves (and their families) were put up for bid at public auction. In an unusual type of auction, the pauper was sold to the lowest bidder (the person who would agree to provide room and board for the lowest price) -- usually this was for a specific period of a. year or so. The person who got the contract got the use of the labor of the pauper for free in return for feeding, clothing, housing and providing health care for the pauper and his/her family. This was actually a form of indentured servitude. It sounds a lot like slavery -- except that it was technically not for the pauper's entire lifetime. And it had many of the perils of slavery. The welfare of the paupers depended almost entirely upon the kindness and fairness of the bidder. If he was motivated only by a desire to make the maximum profit off the "use" of the pauper, then concern for "the bottom line" might result in the pauper being denied adequate food, or safe and comfortable shelter, or even necessary medical treatment. And there often was very little recourse for protection against abuse. (See scan of an authentic record of an auction in 1832 in Sandown NH.)
   
   
3. Contracting with someone in the community to care for Paupers: In this situation the care of a group of paupers was delegated to the person(s) who would contract to provide care at, again, the lowest price. This system allowed the opportunity for somewhat better supervision as indicated in the terms of the contract -- which might specify what minimum standard of care must be provided and that community officers would do inspections, etc. There were still often the same opportunities for abuse that were noted above.
   
   Note: In some cases (before state laws began to require the establishment of County Poorhouses) local communities had already discovered that a place to house paupers helped reduce the cost of poor relief. These small town poorhouses were the prototypes for the later state-required county poorhouses. Those earlier poorhouses often instituted the use of an adjacent farm on which the paupers could work to raise their own food, thus making the houses more self-sufficient (relying less on local tax funds). That is how the term "poor farm" came into being.

THE BEGINNING of the COUNTY POORHOUSE SYSTEM
*not_secure_link*www.poorhousestory.com/gold_line_hor.jpg

During the second quarter of the 19th century, as the industrial revolution had its effect on the United States, the importation of the factory system from England was followed almost immediately by the full scale adoption of what seemed to be an inherent component of that system -- the Poorhouse System. These poorhouses were built with great optimism. They promised to be a much more efficient and cheaper way to provide relief to paupers. And there was a fervent popular belief that housing such people in institutions would provide the opportunity to reform them and cure them of the bad habits and character defects that were assumed to be the cause of their poverty.

 

If that includes ending Social Security and Medicare, a lot of teabaggers will angrily disagree.

 

Computer technology reduces the economic value of jobs most people are able to learn. The Republican panaceas of "lower taxes, less government" will increase their poverty.

Any serious effort to reduce poverty will require a larger, more powerful, and more expensive government.

 

While I don't necessarily agree, I can really appreciate you actually putting out some ideas to improve something that bothers you...rather than just complaining or throwing out some wild anti-establishment bullshit.

 

How do you know that?, did a poll suggest that assumption of yours?

 

There was that line of thinking for awhile.
It let a lot of violent, repeat offenders back out to the public.

Unfortunately, this line of thinking still exists somewhat.
A lot of people get back out that shouldn't, of course the opposite exists as well.
The TROUBLE is, some criminals are, believe it or not HAPPY, to be criminals.
You must have the desire to better yourself before rehabilitation programs will do a thing.

 

There is very little support for cutting Social Security and Medicare.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=poll+++"Social+Security"+++Medicare

This survey, administered by YouGov (formerly Polimetrix) from April 26 - May 2, 2012, examines public attitudes...

YouGov interviewed 1056 respondents who were then matched down to a sample of 1000 to produce the final dataset. The respondents were matched on gender, age, race, education, party identification, ideology, and political interest. YouGov then weighted the matched set of survey respondents to known marginal for the general population of the United States from the 2007 American Community Survey.

The margin of error for the poll is +/- 3.18%.
*not_secure_link*www.dartmouth.edu/~benv/files/poll responses by party ID.pdf

------------

Republicans like to complain about the deficit, which only started to grow after George W. Bush cut taxes for the rich while starting two expensive wars he could not win, and which they only started to complain about after the inauguration of Barack Obama.

Nevertheless, according to this survey:

only 13.5% of Republicans favor "Major cuts in Social Security;"

only 15.5% of Republicans favor "Major cuts in Medicare."

The enduring legacy of Ronald Reagan is to imbue Republicans with the delusion that they can have the government they want without paying for it.

 

Reforming, then eventually eliminating, is my goal.

The Federal fucking government has, as usual, destroyed that system, transforming it from it's original intentions. The private sector can and does it much better than government could ever do.

As usual, you are not well informed, you just a mouth piece for the leftist/socialist/communist/racist/fraudulent/lying/fools. The TEA party was formed well before Obama was inaugurated, jst about '07.

"Major cuts'' is very distorting of the actual facts. Meanwhile, here’s the long-term picture, as seen in the projections contained in a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office: Social Security will rise in cost by 77% during the next decade, and Medicare by 89%, under current policies. Do you think that was also part of the survey questions?

 

Once again you miss my point. Very few people in the Republican Party are calling for deep cuts in specific domestic spending programs. Very few ever have. There are people who would like to terminate Social Security and Medicare immediately or slowly. You are one of them. This is what president Eisenhower said about people like you in a letter written to his brother in 1954:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

What has changed since then is the addition of Medicare, which is about as popular with the voters as Social Security.

I would like also to point out that the topic of this thread is not, "How can we achieve the wish list of a small number of reactionaries?" it is "How to reduce poverty." Ending Social Security and Medicare would not reduce poverty. Ending both would substantially increase the the poverty while reducing life expectancy among those over 65.

-------

PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S seniors -- those aged 65 and older -- have moved from a reliably Democratic group to a reliably Republican one over the past two decades. From 1992 through 2006, seniors had been solidly Democratic and significantly more Democratic than younger Americans. Over the last seven years, seniors have become less Democratic, and have shown an outright preference for the Republican Party since 2010.
*not_secure_link*www.gallup.com/poll/168083/seniors-realigned-republican-party.aspx

This would change very rapidly if Republican politicians got serious about ending, or even defunding Social Security and Medicare.

-------

Another thing to consider is that as gross income has become increasingly unequal, a declining percentage of employers are offering health and retirement benefits to their employees. This means that more Americans are becoming dependent on domestic spending programs by the government.

Lower income whites usually vote Republican. This is not because they are opposed to Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, and other domestic spending programs that benefit them. It is because of their stands on social issues. As is the case with those over the age of 65, the support of this demographic for the Republican Party will dwindle if the GOP tries to end or defund Social Security and Medicare.

 

I doubt that many of the kind of people who end up in prison would find the kind of work performed by chain gangs more attractive than the gains of criminal activity.

In the United States the War on Poverty was begun in 1964. As the War on Poverty made welfare benefits more generous and easier to qualify for welfare rolls increased, even though there was a steady decline in unemployment during the 1960's.

*not_secure_link*data.bls.gov/times...s_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data

 

Computer technology reduces the economic value of jobs that can be learned by those of average or below average intelligence.

Few people on the right or the left discuss this problem with anything approaching honesty. Conservatives pretend that that if one graduates from high school, takes any job available, and has no illegitimate children, that person will not become poor. They have a very low concept of what constitutes poverty.

Liberals pretend that differences in native intelligence are unimportant, or that they hardly even exist.

Any serious effort to reduce poverty, which again I remind people is the topic of this thread, will require a government that is much larger, stronger, and more expensive than the present government.

Job training is fine. Unfortunately, our economy is not producing well paying jobs for people with double digit IQ's that can be learned in six months to a year.

Instead, conscientious people without superior intelligence are losing well paying jobs.

 

Well, the old Dog found a new theme;
Big government eliminates poverty.

This is gonna be fun!

OI! DOG!
Member the welfare mommies?
You know, people who had more kids cause they got more welfare?

Shall we start there?
Or would you like to start somewhere else.

Maybe how long term unemployment benefits that replace 100% of lost wages reduces unemployment
Or maybe you want to continue with the misconception that Social Security is welfare
Pick your focus point, and lets get started!

 

In my concern for the poor I draw a sharp distinction between the working poor, and those whom Karl Marx called "the lumpen proletariat."

I define the working poor as those who earn minimum wage, or little more, and who receive little or nothing in health and retirement benefits.

Karl Marx would see the lumpen proletariat as the under class. I define the under class as the unemployable class of welfare recipients who often supplement their welfare checks with the gains of criminal activity.

For the working poor I advocate a high minimum wage, strong labor unions, and a well financed public sector of the economy paid for by steeply progressive taxation.

For the under class I recommend long prison sentences at hard labor, and plenty of executions.

 

Yet if there are whites in this underclass, would they get the same benefits as the working poor?

 

No.

Blacks in the working poor would get the benefits.

 

Discrimination: Something you have stated you do NOT want to happen.

 

I define the working poor as those who earn minimum wage, or little more, and who receive little or nothing in health and retirement benefits.

Karl Marx would see the lumpen proletariat as the under class. I define the under class as the unemployable class of welfare recipients who often supplement their welfare checks with the gains of criminal activity.

And there you are.
The "working poor" can find all the opportunity they need to move from poor to rich. It's called the American dream. Its still achievable and requires no participation by government; they can and will do it themselves when given the opportunity.

The under class as you define them in effect means anyone you find unacceptable; either as to politics, morals, intelligence or orientation.

It's quite simple, you see, for government to step in and say "we're going to get rid of these undesirables, these vermin, who hold back the rest of society. We'll put them in special camps and reeducate them or put them to useful work, but in any case they will no longer be able to drag our fine society down.

And then you see, all that is left is to define whatever you want for "undesirable"

Notably, Hitler started with "Jews, homosexuals, political opponents"
The Chinese don't screw around. It's anyone they determine are "acting against good public order"
Pol Pot decided it was the intellectuals, the business owners, the educated and his political opponents.
Hirohito defined them as "Anyone who does not fight to the death"

Reading between the lines of what you've written here and elsewhere, I can predict that if the Dog had the power, the definition of "under class: would be "anyone who is black or Republican, and especially the members of the Tea Party"

 

Scale back the free hand out programs... for some.. as long as they can get by .why work.... you can help people to the point to where it hurts them..s.c. has a welfare to work program.... you can only ride for so long... then your out.

 

little Socialist Euroweenies need to keep in they're own back yard and wreck they're own societies like they've done for CENTURIES! NOW, YOU DON'T LIVE IN THE STATES, NOR DO YOU WORK OR HAVE A STAKE HERE. SO SHUT YOU'RE CAKE HOLE!