fate

No one can win the war on poverty. Some people will refuse help because they are not quite right. Some won't do for themselves. Some don't need handouts as much as life skills.

No. But you'll agree that there have been periods in American history when poverty was less and when the working class and middle class were better off, and when generational movement between socio economic levels was much greater than it is now. (1950 through to the late 1970's)
And you might also recognize that the US is unique in the degree of poverty within its populations versus other western democracies? Not just the percentages in poverty but the conditions of the poor...
There is such a thing as "best practices". In the business world its common to look around ones industry, reaching around the globe for examples, to find out what works. Do you agree that this approach should be applied to how policy is evolved to combat poverty and the condition of the poor?
That would be common sense wouldn't it?
So, although you might not eradicate poverty, you might lessen it and mitigate the conditions of the poor - at the same time spending far less on entitlments...
And you'd do this by copying Best practices... Thats is copying whats worked before and elsewhere..

rickyp wrote:fate

No one can win the war on poverty. Some people will refuse help because they are not quite right. Some won't do for themselves. Some don't need handouts as much as life skills.

No. But you'll agree that there have been periods in American history when poverty was less and when the working class and middle class were better off, and when generational movement between socio economic levels was much greater than it is now. (1950 through to the late 1970's)

Yes, but I would not agree that this time in American history is comparable to that one. We are not coming out of WW2. We don't have a massive, booming economy. So, you can't draw precise parallels and prescribe the same tax structure and expect the same results.

And you might also recognize that the US is unique in the degree of poverty within its populations versus other western democracies? Not just the percentages in poverty but the conditions of the poor...

You can't compare us to other democracies without taking other things into account--like the fact that we protect many of them. Again, you cannot make a one for one comparison.

There is such a thing as "best practices". In the business world its common to look around ones industry, reaching around the globe for examples, to find out what works. Do you agree that this approach should be applied to how policy is evolved to combat poverty and the condition of the poor?

No.

That would be common sense wouldn't it?

No.

You want to compare Chevrolets and apples, then say if we act the same as apples, we'll get the same results. No, we won't.

How many of those countries, whichever they may be, have porous borders and welfare programs that extend benefits to millions of illegal aliens? If they're so great, why aren't the Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, etc., fleeing to them?

For me it's not so much about winning a 'war on poverty', so much as reducing the collateral damage.

There will always be people who make poor decisions. Part of it is protecting people from the worst of their own poor decisions, but a lot is really about protecting others around them as well. Hence a lot of welfare is (or should) be targeted towards those with kids. Not to 'reward' people for having kids, but to ensure that the circumstances that the children are in is not determined simply by the position of their parents. To give them a greater chance at equal opportunity.

fate

Yes, but I would not agree that this time in American history is comparable to that one. We are not coming out of WW2. We don't have a massive, booming economy. So, you can't draw precise parallels and prescribe the same tax structure and expect the same results

One can never be entirely precise. For instance in 1947 the US accumulatated debt was far greater than it is today. (145% of annual GDP ) Thats way worse than today.

Businesses never consider best practices for precision. They consider them for direction. They implement them to get improvement in the direction of their required indicators.
So if you want to grow the middle class, and alleviate poverty why not consider the polciies and conditions that moved the country very quickly in that direction?

fate

You can't compare us to other democracies without taking other things into account--like the fact that we protect many of them. Again, you cannot make a one for one comparison

Of course you can. Economists and sociologists do it all the time.
What you are questioning is the legitimacy of the comparison.
Business who consider best practices also have to take into account local market factors... but they don't discount the validity of the information they gather because they have to apply the general lessons they learn about successful practices to their own circumstances.
And face it Fate, the US starts with enormous advantages over all the countries that it could be compared to .... Surely the strength and size of the economy, the total GDP and the per capita GDP, out weigh any disadvantage the US might suffer because its so busy defending the world.
(By the way, the US military industrial complex is the net beneficiary of this "defend the world policy". And as such is a hugely successful exporter of US goods. Factoring in this the cost of "defending the world" isn't really an impediment to implementing succesful policies from countries with less poverty and less severe poverty effects. Plus the projection of strength has generally contributed to favorable trade policies and etc.)

fate

How many of those countries, whichever they may be, have porous borders and welfare programs that extend benefits to millions of illegal aliens? If they're so great, why aren't the Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, etc., fleeing to them?

You know how pourous the EU Community is?
They've got Turks, Africans, and Arabs.... instead. So that problem isn't so unique either. This sound familiar?

Through policies passed into law in this same Reichstag, the country has taken an official zero-tolerance policy toward illegal immigration, emphasizing the need to deport current illegal residents and illegal workers as well as criminalizing aid to such illegal persons, estimated unofficially at upwards of one million. Nonetheless, enforcement against illegal entry and residence is generally weak, and authorities often look the other way as illegal workers continue to make crucial contributions to Germany’s overall economy, especially in informal or low-profit margin sectors such as domestic care and agriculture

source: http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowled ... to-germany

fate

You want to compare Chevrolets and apples, then say if we act the same as apples, we'll get the same results. No, we won't.

You've just got your head stuck in the sand.
Not much of a view..
If US businesses had the same attitude of purposeful ignorance they'd never compete.
The difference is that US businesses are motivated to make money, but the business of running a government is not about measurable results and consequences in the same fashion.
Though those societies that do buy into a business like approach using metrics that they are willing to compare to other places in the world - do learn and improve...
And those are the countries where poverty is much less, and where the effcts of being poor are mitigated greatly and where generational migration from lower to higher socio economic levels is far greater then the US...
Believing in US exceptionalism without comparisons to prove or disprove it ..... thats just faith based reasoning Fate. Comparison of poverty shouldn't be avoided just because its discomfitting to see the results.

danivon wrote:For me it's not so much about winning a 'war on poverty', so much as reducing the collateral damage.

There will always be people who make poor decisions. Part of it is protecting people from the worst of their own poor decisions, but a lot is really about protecting others around them as well. Hence a lot of welfare is (or should) be targeted towards those with kids. Not to 'reward' people for having kids, but to ensure that the circumstances that the children are in is not determined simply by the position of their parents. To give them a greater chance at equal opportunity.

I want to agree with this, but too often the answer is taking the children from the parents, which, as I witness all the time, is too difficult in far too many cases. I'm all for keeping families together. However, parents who consistently jeopardize their children by their recklessness and their addictions should not get 4, 5, 6 opportunities.

We can't protect everyone from their poor decisions. Learning from failure is often a benefit in life. I know this well and there's an excellent book out on the topic just now.

Money does not equal opportunity. The best "opportunity" in life is having parents who properly care and raise a child. Given that, a child can do anything.

Doctor Fate wrote:Money does not equal opportunity. The best "opportunity" in life is having parents who properly care and raise a child. Given that, a child can do anything.

I am living proof.

rickyp wrote:fate

Yes, but I would not agree that this time in American history is comparable to that one. We are not coming out of WW2. We don't have a massive, booming economy. So, you can't draw precise parallels and prescribe the same tax structure and expect the same results

One can never be entirely precise. For instance in 1947 the US accumulatated debt was far greater than it is today. (145% of annual GDP ) Thats way worse than today.

Businesses never consider best practices for precision. They consider them for direction. They implement them to get improvement in the direction of their required indicators.
So if you want to grow the middle class, and alleviate poverty why not consider the polciies and conditions that moved the country very quickly in that direction?

You're not making the case. You simply have restated your assertion.

fate

You can't compare us to other democracies without taking other things into account--like the fact that we protect many of them. Again, you cannot make a one for one comparison

Of course you can. Economists and sociologists do it all the time.

Sigh. I forgot your limited facility in English. If you want to say we should adopt the systems of other countries, you need to explain how, financially, that would be done. We are not Sweden. If we take Sweden's policies and implement them, we will go broke. Now, if we seal our border, cut our military to nearly nothing, well, then we might be able to pull it off.

That's what I'm talking about.

And, if that's what we want, we should elect Bernie Sanders President.

We almost have Mr. Sanders, but not quite.

fate

How many of those countries, whichever they may be, have porous borders and welfare programs that extend benefits to millions of illegal aliens? If they're so great, why aren't the Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, etc., fleeing to them?

You know how pourous the EU Community is?
They've got Turks, Africans, and Arabs.... instead. So that problem isn't so unique either. This sound familiar?

Not so. Europe has imported workers because of dropping birthrates. However, I don't believe they have roughly 7% of their population as illegal aliens.

Look at the current "wave" into Europe and compare it to what we already have. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -rise.html

Furthermore, does Europe have violent gangs moving across its borders like we do with MS-13 and others?

If US businesses had the same attitude of purposeful ignorance they'd never compete.
The difference is that US businesses are motivated to make money, but the business of running a government is not about measurable results and consequences in the same fashion.

Enough. Instead of attack me, why not actually make your case? I know that would be difficult, but at least it would be a positive contribution.

What would the USA do if it wanted to take "best practices" and employ them? What would that look like? How much would it cost? Who would pay for it? Would there be a downside? What impact would it have on the Debt, Deficit, military?

Believing in US exceptionalism without comparisons to prove or disprove it ..... thats just faith based reasoning Fate. Comparison of poverty shouldn't be avoided just because its discomfitting to see the results.

Just saying we can take socialistic systems and implement them here without any analysis is "faith-based" idiocy. Of course, it's what you typically do.

So, please, do tell us: how do we maintain our military and become a socialist country? Go ahead, lay it out.

fate

If we take Sweden's policies and implement them, we will go broke

.
I doubt you are aware of how successful the Swedish economy is.....
I'm also not suggesting that the US copy every element of the Swedish system. However, it should be noted that Sweden has little to no poverty. And balances its budget....

The idea of lean Nordic government will come as a shock both to French leftists who dream of socialist Scandinavia and to American conservatives who fear that Barack Obama is bent on “Swedenisation”. They are out of date. In the 1970s and 1980s the Nordics were indeed tax-and-spend countries. Sweden’s public spending reached 67% of GDP in 1993. Astrid Lindgren, the inventor of Pippi Longstocking, was forced to pay more than 100% of her income in taxes. But tax-and-spend did not work: Sweden fell from being the fourth-richest country in the world in 1970 to the 14th in 1993.
Since then the Nordics have changed course—mainly to the right. Government’s share of GDP in Sweden, which has dropped by around 18 percentage points, is lower than France’s and could soon be lower than Britain’s. Taxes have been cut: the corporate rate is 22%, far lower than America’s. The Nordics have focused on balancing the books. While Mr Obama and Congress dither over entitlement reform, Sweden has reformed its pension system (see Free exchange)[b]. Its budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP; America’s is 7%.[/b]
On public services the Nordics have been similarly pragmatic. So long as public services work, they do not mind who provides them. Denmark and Norway allow private firms to run public hospitals. Sweden has a universal system of school vouchers, with private for-profit schools competing with public schools. Denmark also has vouchers—but ones that you can top up. When it comes to choice, Milton Friedman would be more at home in Stockholm than in Washington, DC

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... supermodel

rickyp wrote:fate

If we take Sweden's policies and implement them, we will go broke

.
I doubt you are aware of how successful the Swedish economy is.....
I'm also not suggesting that the US copy every element of the Swedish system. However, it should be noted that Sweden has little to no poverty. And balances its budget....

I picked them on purpose. Go ahead. Make your case.

Oh, just one note: Sweden's military spending per capita is 1/3 of ours. Her national debt per capita is nearly twice ours. Have fun.

Hint: citing some experts about how wonderful Sweden is won't work. You have to tell me how we get to where they are.

Good luck.

Doctor Fate wrote:I want to agree with this, but too often the answer is taking the children from the parents, which, as I witness all the time, is too difficult in far too many cases. I'm all for keeping families together. However, parents who consistently jeopardize their children by their recklessness and their addictions should not get 4, 5, 6 opportunities.

So who decides this new level of being able to remove children from families (I am assuming it is some level of government), where do the kids go (especially if they are hard to place with adoptive or foster families) and who pays?

We can't protect everyone from their poor decisions. Learning from failure is often a benefit in life. I know this well and there's an excellent book out on the topic just now.

Money does not equal opportunity. The best "opportunity" in life is having parents who properly care and raise a child. Given that, a child can do anything.

There is more to it than just money and parents. The expectations of wider society, education, etc. Some people get on despite having bad parents. Others fail despite good parents.

And I would not feel comfortable with an overly moralistic approach to parenting. Generalising about being born 'out of wedlock' for example.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I want to agree with this, but too often the answer is taking the children from the parents, which, as I witness all the time, is too difficult in far too many cases. I'm all for keeping families together. However, parents who consistently jeopardize their children by their recklessness and their addictions should not get 4, 5, 6 opportunities.

So who decides this new level of being able to remove children from families (I am assuming it is some level of government), where do the kids go (especially if they are hard to place with adoptive or foster families) and who pays?

Ideally, relatives. In some cases, foster care.

You want to talk about "who pays?"

The children pay.

They 're left alone so "Mom" and "Dad" can get high.

They're exposed to drug dealers, con artists, addicts, and all of Mom and Dad's "friends."

They live in high crime areas because, you know, that's where the government housing is.

They get placed into good and bad homes, places where they're loved and places where they're not.

But, they always go "home" to "Mommy" and "Daddy."

Or, maybe just one or the other.

Read this carefully: addicts deserve second chances, maybe even a third chance. But, they're kids don't deserve the fourth, fifth and sixth chances.

Kids are the priority, not their addict parents.

There is more to it than just money and parents. The expectations of wider society, education, etc. Some people get on despite having bad parents. Others fail despite good parents.

Few fail despite "good parents." Good parents know what they're kids are doing and aren't often surprised.

Many people think they are "good" parents. I have seen and do see many of these "good" parents. Many are not. Some stop parenting sometime about when puberty hits. Some figure kids just need to be told they're loved and the kids will "figure it out." Parenting is a verb--many parents forget that.

And I would not feel comfortable with an overly moralistic approach to parenting. Generalising about being born 'out of wedlock' for example.

The two have nothing to do with each other. How one parents has nothing to do with "being born out of wedlock."

Now, women having children out of wedlock are statistically far more likely to live in poverty, but that's not what you're talking about.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I want to agree with this, but too often the answer is taking the children from the parents, which, as I witness all the time, is too difficult in far too many cases. I'm all for keeping families together. However, parents who consistently jeopardize their children by their recklessness and their addictions should not get 4, 5, 6 opportunities.

So who decides this new level of being able to remove children from families (I am assuming it is some level of government), where do the kids go (especially if they are hard to place with adoptive or foster families) and who pays?

Ideally, relatives. In some cases, foster care.

Fine, but that didn't answer what happens for children who are hard to place - if there are not relatives willing or able to take them in, and if foster places are not forthcoming.

You want to talk about "who pays?"

The children pay.

No, I'm asking who pays for extending governmental systems to exert more control over families, assessing, removing, placing etc. I figured that would be obvious from the fact it was all one sentence.

And you didn't answer the first part of the question - "who decides this new level of being able to remove children from families (I am assuming it is some level of government)"

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I want to agree with this, but too often the answer is taking the children from the parents, which, as I witness all the time, is too difficult in far too many cases. I'm all for keeping families together. However, parents who consistently jeopardize their children by their recklessness and their addictions should not get 4, 5, 6 opportunities.

So who decides this new level of being able to remove children from families (I am assuming it is some level of government), where do the kids go (especially if they are hard to place with adoptive or foster families) and who pays?

Ideally, relatives. In some cases, foster care.

Fine, but that didn't answer what happens for children who are hard to place - if there are not relatives willing or able to take them in, and if foster places are not forthcoming.

I don't think the situation is quite like you imagine. However, I could make it real easy for the government--if it would not be quite so oppressive regarding churches.

No, I'm asking who pays for extending governmental systems to exert more control over families, assessing, removing, placing etc. I figured that would be obvious from the fact it was all one sentence.

I'm telling you there will be no additional cost. They do all of this now. However, they keep going back to the parents no matter how many times the parents screw up. I'm saying there should be less judicial discretion, which is where the problem is.

And you didn't answer the first part of the question - "who decides this new level of being able to remove children from families (I am assuming it is some level of government)"

It would not change, which I presumed you would understand. For kids in troubled situations, they have two obstacles to getting to good homes: the government and their parents. I'm heavily involved with adoptions and protective services. The truth is they do a good job about 1/2 the time. I'd like to "help" them get a better result on the other half.

I don't believe there would be any extra cost at all.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'm telling you there will be no additional cost. They do all of this now. However, they keep going back to the parents no matter how many times the parents screw up. I'm saying there should be less judicial discretion, which is where the problem is.

So where should the discretion reside? Sounds like you want the Executive to extend power at the expense of the Judiciary.

And you didn't answer the first part of the question - "who decides this new level of being able to remove children from families (I am assuming it is some level of government)"

It would not change, which I presumed you would understand. For kids in troubled situations, they have two obstacles to getting to good homes: the government and their parents. I'm heavily involved with adoptions and protective services. The truth is they do a good job about 1/2 the time. I'd like to "help" them get a better result on the other half.

Clearly in practice it would change, or the number of children removed from their parents would not alter.

I don't believe there would be any extra cost at all.

We have a Cabinet minister who makes statements like that. Some evidence would be nice.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I'm telling you there will be no additional cost. They do all of this now. However, they keep going back to the parents no matter how many times the parents screw up. I'm saying there should be less judicial discretion, which is where the problem is.

So where should the discretion reside? Sounds like you want the Executive to extend power at the expense of the Judiciary.

No, let me quote me, "It would not change." I would place statutory limits on judges to stop the revolving door sooner than it stops now. I want parents to keep their kids. I don't want them to have so many "chances" that they destroy their children's lives in the future.

I have a rather poor opinion of many family court judges. I've heard too many of them wax eloquent.

And you didn't answer the first part of the question - "who decides this new level of being able to remove children from families (I am assuming it is some level of government)"

I don't believe there would be any extra cost at all.

We have a Cabinet minister who makes statements like that. Some evidence would be nice.

Put me in charge.

Look, the workers are already there. The courts are already there. All I want to do is cut out some of the "one more chance" opportunities and make putting the kids in "forever homes" a bit easier.

We have situations now where biological fathers who have never seen their 3 year-old kids are holding up adoptions. That's preposterous. If you haven't cared about your child up to this point, you have no say.