|
|
Post by Niki K on Jan 13, 2016 23:04:31 GMT
Poverty is a shared responsibility, because with the more resources available to the people, the more opportunities people have to advance their economic situations and help provide for their families. People need guidance and assistance from society in order to 'climb up the ladder' and get to where they want to be.
|
|
danaw
New Member
Posts: 6 
|
Post by danaw on Jan 13, 2016 23:08:16 GMT
I agree that alleviating poverty is a shared responsibility, but that our government needs to reform our approach. We need to be wiser in how we distribute funds meant to help people. By promoting better educational standards and resources that are long term, not temporary, we can begin to break the cycle of poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by caralinealbro on Jan 13, 2016 23:11:56 GMT
I agree that poverty is a shared responsibility. Obviously, we cannot allocate all resources equally, as that would destroy the economy. However, I think a key solution to poverty is the ideology behind the redistribution of the wealth to the bottom 50%. By reallocating some of the excess income of the wealthy to the poor, the wealthy can remain wealthy while the poor can gain somewhat more wealth. This would decrease the huge gap between the rich and poor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Niki K on Jan 13, 2016 23:12:17 GMT
Poverty is also a shared responsibility, because youth and children who are born into poverty, do not necessarily have the same resources or mentorship available to them. Most likely their parents are working multiple jobs at a time, and do not have the time to devote attention to their children and motivate them to do well. People in society should offer a helping hand either indirectly or directly for the impoverished youth to allow them to access the same opportunities as those who are wealthy. These opportunities and resources would allow the youth to become motivated and believe that they can change their economic situations to become who they desire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Manuela Velasquez on Jan 13, 2016 23:13:12 GMT
I agree with these responses; the government has to take responsibility for giving a wider range of people better opportunities as a starting point for their educational/financial growth. I liked the quote of "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a night, give a man a fishing pole and he'll have food the rest of his life" (or something like that) quote that was said during the discussion, and I agree that rather than the government focusing on trying to keep the impoverished going with funds to periodically better their situations, the government has to attack the issue of poverty at it's root.
|
|
JFU
New Member
Posts: 7 
|
Post by JFU on Jan 13, 2016 23:16:06 GMT
Yeah, simply distributing welfare or monetary assistance might not be the best way to deal with poverty. There have been other nations that have implemented welfare systems, by for example giving a monthly allotment to unemployed and struggling citizens that scales down based on employment and income. One of the issues with this system, however, is that it to a degree disincentivizes income; as you make more money, you lose benefits, and so you might really make only $.60 for each dollar in new income you make. This is of course completely hypothetical.
|
|
danaw
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by danaw on Jan 13, 2016 23:49:26 GMT
I agree with Manuela's comment that self-sufficiency is a much more viable solution that short term "handouts" because it attempts to solve the root of the problem. While unequal educational standards, unemployment, and other issues people in poverty face are a part of the problem at it's root, the cause of those problems is unequal opportunity. Equal opportunity can be attained by giving meaningful resources to people who can't get them by themselves, because they have to focus on paying bills and making ends meet. By giving people tools, such as technology and access to knowledge, you are giving them means to and end, which would be a better economic and social situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by aarthipopat on Jan 14, 2016 1:07:55 GMT
I agree with Dana -- that to maintain a lasting effect when solving poverty, we must combat it through better education and training resources. The government should fund programs that provide opportunities for impoverished people to find work and to gain skills that can help them financially sustain themselves for a long period of time. The government and the American people have a responsibility to reduce poverty, but just distributing funds provides only a short-term solution to poverty. Providing government-funded opportunities to disadvantaged people can help reduce the lasting effects that initial inequality have on the impoverished, and can level the playing field.
|
|
|
|
Post by Niki K on Jan 14, 2016 1:44:25 GMT
I agree with both Aarthi and Dana in that in order to lower the percentage of poverty in our country we must be able to spend more on education for all students which will give them the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. Distributing money among the wealth would initially help those who live in poverty to get a start - maybe invest some of the money, spend it on transportation to their jobs, healthcare etc. but would not allow them to significantly improve their economic and living situations. Through education, people become more motivated as they start to see that they have a bright future ahead of them if they are willing to use all their resources to their advantage.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, "An investment in knowledge pays the best interest".
By spending money or donating money to educational facilities and schools, more students who are living in poverty will be able to obtain the knowledge necessary to succeed in life and can contribute to society. These educated youth will then be able to occupy a variety of more positions and will be able to receive a higher salary based on their education.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmccolloch on Jan 14, 2016 2:04:05 GMT
While I think education is very important, and definitely should be improved to provide for all students, there can be some issues with relying only on education to help the poor. What if someone has a learning/mental disability or an illness? While the average student can improve his/her academic performance, some students will continue to struggle in school, despite an increase of funds dedicated to offer support. I think we must consider all cases of poverty, even the difficult ones. In addition to improving educational opportunities, we should also fund programs designed to help families provide the best support for their children who won't be able to improve academically. If wealthy families have children with these issues, they can pay for constant attention to the child or do it themselves without worrying about paying the bill, but poor people do not have this luxury. Therefore, we have a shared responsibility to help people in really difficult situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulbargar on Jan 14, 2016 2:40:24 GMT
I completely agree that while education is most commonly the best way of solving poverty, many other unique situations warrant different forms of aid. Any system we implement must include a way to interpret and effectively respond to different, uncommon situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by caralinealbro on Jan 14, 2016 3:37:21 GMT
While implementing training and education is the best way to reduce poverty, welfare is not the worst option. Based on my knowledge of welfare, the monthly allotment is very little money. This money can barely help a family scrape by. I think welfare is a way for people to pick themselves off their feet, as most impoverished people do not have a lot of time to attend training sessions or classes when they are simultaneously trying to secure a job for their next meal. Eventually training and education comes into play, but welfare is a small step towards a better life. Furthermore, as welfare is so little money, it serves as a form of encouragement to get a job and make more money. No one can live a comfortable life on welfare and food stamps, so I don't think that people really become dependent on them for their well-being. Of course, training and education is the next step, and probably the most important step in the process of alleviating poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresaamor on Jan 14, 2016 3:59:09 GMT
I agree with Caraline, it probably is difficult to find time to attend classes when you are still trying to find your next meal, and welfare is a good way to help people get by until they finish their classes/ find a job. The welfare system need to be balanced between giving enough for people to get by while they work towards something better, but not giving so much that people can live comfortably off it forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by griffink on Jan 14, 2016 4:09:17 GMT
While I think improving the quality of education is important for raising people out of poverty—education gives opportunity for industrious individuals to create a better life and use their education to lead into a better job—by itself it will not serve entirely as the solution; even with access to a better education, impoverished people often will find themselves in a situation where they are not able to take advantage of the better stamps. For example, a poor household with many kids will often need some of the kids to work, so rather than spending time at a school, whether or not the schooling system is improved, they need to spend time working at a job instead. So, further measures also need to be in place, as well as improved education. As Caraline mentioned, this could be some form of welfare, or things such as scholarships etc, based on school participation to subsidize those who choose to pursue an education when they are needed to also provide for their families.
|
|
|
|
Post by allanbeilin on Jan 14, 2016 6:47:07 GMT
Strictly in terms of redistribution of wealth and "income-inequality" reduction, you get to a point where you have to choose between two options. Either you redistribute wealth completely to a state of complete and total financial equality, where each citizen has the same wealth, and supposedly the same opportunities, the same resources and amenities, the same everything. Everyone is equal and poverty no longer exists (temporarily). Sounds brilliant. Unfortunately, this model has proven itself to be a failure, and a miserable one at that, by the socialist and communist regimes of the 20th century. The second option is no redistribution of wealth whatsoever. This second option is the essence of "pure" capitalism and is the fastest and most reliable means of achieving economic growth. Thus, it is important to recognize that any deviation from this second model, however small, does hurt our economy and stifle economic growth. Also please note that these considerations are purely economic, and that moral considerations were not taken into account being that these are economic models and morality has no place in economics.
|
|
