Show me a government in this country that can do anything efficiently and effectively and we can have a real discussion about this. The fact is that our government cannot operate a post office properly. Our government cannot operate the military without huge amounts of waste. Our government can't even collect taxes without a monolithic and wasteful bureaucracy. The thought of our government taking over anything of real importance scares me to death. This does not even touch upon the problems that are faced by some countries due to excessive financing of these programs. Add that to the debt problems we already face and it will not be pretty.
There definitely should be. You can always study liberal arts before or after you get a trade. There is phenomenal competition for professor jobs or recently we see that 50% of new law grads are having problems.
No not the young conservatives and libertarians!! Housing prices always go up, they will always buy their biggest house at just the right time and they are immune to the periodic 15 year downturns in the market which will never coincide with their peak earning years before they retire, don't you know. Besides they will never have health problems due to lots of personal responsibility by eating organic food and exercising in theiir twenties and thirties so that won't depress peak earnings either. With even less regulation the banks will never go under. Of course in Canada they did not tank. They had more regulation but reall is is because they are are all so white, well oops, "homogeneous" ,never mind. Even if they have the bad timing/luck mentioned above they are content to suck it up because at least they were not so immoral, as to organize society in a manner that violates mother nature i.e The Market to prevent these types of problems for most folks.
I have a cousin from Austria where they have these dual tracks. He served a plumbing apprenticeship and has had a great career making bank (here in the US). The main thing is, whether its the things lacking at home or societal support or lack of educational infrastructure, the poor aren't incapable of learning and vocational training is much more focused than gen Ed.
The government has done plenty with 'important' issues. See ending: slavery, segregation, monopolies, reeling in environmental pollution, creating national parks, worker safety, preventing child labor and sexual exploitation, preventing health epidemics, providing disaster relief, retirement for elderly (ie social security which is solvent btw and incredibly effective), and on and on. Things the private sector not only wouldn't provide a solution for, but problems the private sector actively caused. ANY large organization will have inefficiency and waste. Your position is akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house because you lose a chicken once in awhile.
I think that a lot of people just aren't exposed to the possibility. There's 2 major (~7 years each) projects going on in my neck of the woods (replacing a bridge over a lake and rebuilding a hydroelectric power plant) and there is a severe shortage of skilled tradesmen. Hell, there's a shortage of apprentice-level beginners (ie young US citizens) who are willing to do a couple of years of grunt work for a master elec/carp/plumb/weld/etc. It's about like the shale/tarsands, if you have talent you can just about name your price. ****, I get bored and charge $100/hr to sit in my barn and fiddle with jetskis and boat motors in my free time, it's ludicrous.
Great post. People tend to forget some of the great things government has accomplished. People also tend to forget a lot of the horrible abuses that have occurred with uncontrolled capitalism.
So you are going to equate abolishing of slavery, which required a civil war to our presently day dysfunctional government financing additional aid programs. I have always respected your opinions here over the years, but you are way off base if you think that slavery and desegregation were a function of government rather than a function of changes in social norms. Also, these things were done with existing law enforcement vehicles rather than new and expansive bureaucracy. Apples to footballs.
"The thought of our government taking over anything of real importance scares me to death." That was your statement. I gave you a historical view of all kinds of important things I am happy as hell the government has done and continues to do. I like your military argument, btw. Seems you be forgetting its the private sector overselling capabilities, under delivering on schedules, over charging the tax payer, and trying to fix (not in the good way) the system. And thats who you'd hand over responsibility to? Methinks your arg gots some major problems. And no, these we not done with existing bureaucracies. New org were built and staffed (e.g. Social Security Administration, EPA, OSHA), new legislation and subsequent regulations passed (e.g. Clean Air Act, Civil Right act), and new services provided. Even those that existed and were used for enforcement had to expand their resources (e.g. IRS, Justice Department).
I am in the Eisenhower camp. As he was leaving office, Eisenhower said that we should beware of the industrial military complex. Sadly, those contractors are in the pockets of the politicians. Your examples, by and large, are those of changes to the law that were enforced using existing resources. They did not require the establishment of new organizations to administer funds and create brand new inefficiencies that would be borne by the tax paying public at a time when we are spending a billion dollars a year more than we take in already. You should have known this by the context of the conversation.
I think of the first things that needs to be done to address poverty is health care. As some point out - this can lead people to financial ruin, and I myself think one of the reasons we are having trouble addressing problems like poverty is because the health system sucks so much wealth out. I don't understand why so many are opposed to the gov't creating a national insurance plan that anyone can buy into. Premiums can be competitive and the care would be top tier. You know why? Because there would be no massive profit margin for the gov't to take, just price it to be self-sustaining. And if they don't want to drive the insurance companies out of business yet still exert downward pressure on premiums, they can make it so that it matches the lowest premiums in the market. And they could take the extra cash they get from that to help extend coverage to the poor. Insurance companies would never let that happen - but that's one thing that prevents any kind of solution - it always results in some group killing it. Problem with poverty is that no one has an incentive besides their altruistic nation to help eliminate extreme poverty. The poor wield no political power. The poor don't need handouts to get out from being poor, they need an education, and stability so that they can actually gain skills and make it to work. When you are dirt poor, you can't even afford to do a job search or travel for pursuing work away from your area. I think that's what needs to change. That anyone should be able to have a chance to learn something and look for a job that fits them.
Just like Amtrak and The Postal Service; top tier quality, competitive pricing, and self sustaining...
A study published in 1999 by Pennsylvania State University and Abt Associates researchers looked at filings in five court districts, determining that medical bills and credit card debt were the biggest factors leading to bankruptcy. But a 2008 study by a business professor at the University of California, Davis, said that while medical issues certainly caused bankruptcy, the bigger problem was that families spent beyond their means, leaving them vulnerable to even minor disruptions. "Although our study supports the notion that adverse events contribute to personal bankruptcy filings, the findings emphasize that excessive consumption probably contributes more to the recent increase in personal bankruptcy filing." That study looked at filings in Delaware in 2003.
Yes... But what are the specifics on why people are poor and how can we help them? Here's one reason why they are poor. In 2007, the median earnings of household headed by individuals with less than a 9th grade education was $20,805 while households headed by high school graduates earned $40,456, households headed holders of bachelor’s degree earned $77,605, and families headed by individuals with professional degrees earned $100,000.
Here is the poverty threshold. Persons in Family Unit 48 States and D.C. 1 $11,170/year 2 $15,130 3 $19,090 4 $23,050
I think Vocational training has short term and immediate goals. You can come out of a plumbing program making good money in . .what 2 maybe 3 years at most and you can start a program at 16. That is pretty much guaranteed money College. . there is POTENTIAL for more money but it is not guaranteed Well not as guaranteed as being a plumber or electrician or something like that When your poor. . . . you might be a 1. More Risk Averse 2. More impatient Not true in all cases of course. . . but I think . . it had being in college 4 yrs incurring great debt and watching your family starve all at the same times If you could be in and out in 3 yrs with solid earning potention . .. you might be more motivated Rocket River
Yep. It would also break the cycle of poverty as that persons family has more financial security and the subsequent advantages that brings in education and upward mobility.
