Originally posted by darkhorse
Health care thing has already been covered on this very thread from multiple angles.
The millions living in slums are actually more a victim of the welfare state than of lack of opportunity. LBJ's great society was the worst thing to ever happen to minorities because an entitlement mentality is corrosive to mind, body and spirit.
There are essentially zero people going hungry in the US. No city is without its churches or soup kitchens. As far as opportunity, there is more here than anywhere. Anyone- and I do mean ANYONE- can get an education if they want one. Get a GED, work two jobs, save up for a night school class that costs maybe $500 or $1000 and gives you occupational training. There are hundreds- no, thousands of these opportunities in every city.
This is partially why mother Europe's unemployment rates are TRIPLE those in the USA. Unemployment numbers alone tell a different story than the one you are suggesting.
And going back to the people in the slums- anyone with no education, no family life and a drug habit is going to have a poor go of it no matter where they live. Ever been to Amsterdam?
Most welfare spending is a waste of money because for every dollar the government takes in at least fifty cents of it is wasted on bureaucracy. And more often than not the other fifty cents does more harm than good and/or takes away from a more efficient private sector replacement that you will never see because the government never let it come in.
The middle way is the mediocre way. Give people opportunity but don't coddle them. Let them make their own mistakes. Let's say you were 21 and without a job, but you were fairly intelligent and a hard worker. Would you really rather be in Europe than USA, where all the labor laws make life cushy for those who are employed at the expense of those who are not? And furthermore, where entrepreneurs are treated like dirt and its practically illegal to fire someone for incompetence?
Again, what I'm saying it's not that way in germany.
You have all the opportunities but few of the shortcomings apart from normal problems that every country naturally has and always will have.
There was that book out awhile ago by a wealthy American author who lived the life of the American Lower Middle class for a year or something just to see what it's like in order to write the book, and her resumee was basically that once you're down to working at McDonalds and holding a second job at Walmart just to barely get by etc, you've pretty much had it, there is no getting out of that.
Does anybody remember the title or author, caused quite a wave a while ago?
So, asked like that, I would take Germany any time simply because the statistical likelihood of making it out of a very poor family there (and you don't have much choice in that matter), than in the US.
http://www.pbs.org/peoplelikeus/resources/stats.html
Or look at this here:
New Child Poverty numbers show U.S. lags other wealthy nations
New York state ranks dead last, with more than 26 percent of its children living in poverty:
Midwest U.S. has lowest child poverty.
For Immediate Release: Tuesday, February 22, 2001
Contact: Jill Leonhardt
Phone: 315-443-5492
E-mail:
jlleonha@maxwell.syr.edu
New fully comparable figures on child poverty across the industrialized world and the 50 United States show a huge disparity from country to country and state to state. While Sweden leads the world with only 2.4 percent child poverty, New York State, at 26.3 percent, ranks last in the industrialized world â behind Italy at 19.3 percent, the closest OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) nation. California is not far behind with 25.7 percent, and in President Bushâs home state of Texas, 20.7 percent of the children live in poverty.
At the other end of the U.S. spectrum, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas were the top-ranked U.S. states â with 13 percent or lower child poverty. Overall, the U.S., with 20.3 percent child poverty, ranks behind all European nations.
The data comes from a ground-breaking new study, Child Well-Being, Child Poverty and Child Policy in Modern Nations, which provides, for the first time, state-based poverty rates that include benefits and taxes not captured by the âofficialâ Census Bureau poverty statistics, and ones that are comparable with those of other nations.
Thus, one can compare poverty among children in U.S. states of 5 million to 20 million persons to those in European countries of about the same size.
âDespite high rates of economic growth and improvements in the standard of living in industrialized nations throughout the 20th century, a significant percentage of our children are still living in families that are so poor that normal health and growth are at risk,â according to Tim Smeeding, co-editor of the book and Maxwell Professor of Public Policy at The Maxwell School of Syracuse University.
âThese numbers are startling and worrisome,â says Smeeding. âOf particular concern is how well states will be able to cope with the ongoing devolution of social assistance programs from the federal to state governments. The evidence in this book suggests that there is a large long-term public sector cost for poor kids in terms of health care, schools, crime, and other public expenditures. Welfare reform has been a great success for many low-income families because of the strong economy. But despite the growth in employment and low-paying jobs, there is still a significant poverty problem in the United States,â he adds.
âUnless we shore up the safety net as we enter this new economic downturn, the Bush Administrationâs reliance on state efforts and religious organizations will fall far short of even maintaining the progress we have made over the past decade, much less further reducing child poverty in America or in any of its states,â Smeeding says.
âFor the more affluent nations, child poverty is not a matter of affordability -- it is a matter of priority,â Smeeding says. â Now while we talk of federal budget surpluses, itâs time to make the same commitment to wiping out child poverty in the United States that we made to wiping out old-age poverty 60 years ago. As Congress crafts its tax cut plan, it should consider progressive policies that would shore up income support for the working and nonworking poor. As the worldâs most affluent economy, there are no valid excuses for our appallingly high child poverty rate.â
The new study underlines the need for a comprehensive national policy to reduce child poverty rates and to improve the well-being of children. It also identifies specific problem areas on which both federal and state policymakers committed to reducing child poverty must focus.
Employment: The most important step in reducing poverty among children is to assure that at least one parent is employed. In particular, the labor market positions of mothers need to be improved, as their earnings are crucial for maintaining an adequate standard of living in a society where two-income families dominate. Obviously, this is doubly true for single parents, where subsidized child care is an absolute necessity for employment.
Parental leave, child support and child-care support: In many cases, parents -- particularly single mothers -- need state support to enable them to work or to adequately take care of their children. Developing adequate parental leave programs, guarantees for child support not paid, and affordable child care are important conditions for keeping mothers in the full-time work force, and in preventing poverty among their children. Child support enforcement measures are important, although their potential for reducing child poverty is limited as many of the parents who fail to pay child support are more likely to be low earners themselves.
Child-related benefits: The minimum wage is insufficient to meet the income needs of working families with children. Full-time work at the current minimum wage leaves a family of three far below the poverty line. Additional child-related tax benefits, such as those mentioned above, are necessary to ensure that working families with children are not poor.
Investment in a socially oriented education policy: Central to the promotion of employment in a knowledge-based society is quality education for every child, regardless of his or her financial or health situation. There are indications that such policies could reduce the likelihood that child poverty is passed on from generation to generation.
# # #
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/news/releases/child_povertypt.htm
