Welfare

I think the first part of my solution would be to turn to voluntary contributions to the poor, as well as charity run organizations that would provide a type of privately run welfare. There isn't a lot of accountability when dealing with a government employee who has no/little attachment to the money they are handing out.

Tax breaks are good. Perhaps other incentives could be explored.

I also like the idea of society turning from huge metro areas to smaller "villages". This breaks up huge urban poor areas and involves people in their neighbors more. Some village-type entities are starting their own village garden/farm and sharing the fruits of their labor. I like that. I think a sense of community and ownership is important for society and we are generally removed from that.

Then you get down to brass tacks.

Food is the biggest, in my view. Provide generics, provide lots of rice. Focus on high yield / high nutrient foods. Poor people should be able to eat, and we want them to be healthy, but they don't have to eat "good". Make this food available to a larger segment of society so that food expenditures take a lesser chunk out of our collective wallets. Then, if you wanna eat good, spend your money on that.

Housing is tougher. You want to avoid the ghetto-type environment. I guess smaller ghettos are better for folks who would otherwise live in the big ghettos, but that isn't necessarily better for society. Perhaps some kind of work/living arangement, like living in a type of cheap/free barracks associated with a particular job. Perhaps privately (church/charity) run housing, with more accountability on a daily basis.

Healthcare, I think, needs to be fully redone and simplified. I think those that are able and or willing to pay should have access to the best care. But I think a healthier society would be better for the long-term financial health of our country. I like your idea in regard to forced preventative care and would like to see an electronic system set in place that easily tracks that baseline coverage. If poor folks don't hold up their end of the bargain, as a society we can't afford unnecessary huge medical bills. Of course, I also like charity (not government-run) health-care.

Education is another key component. We need more innovation on that front. We need more accountability. I'm confused by what makes private schools better. Is it the level of teachers, money invested per child, or quality of child? The public school system is all messed up. True public magnet schools (not mixed magnet) are pretty good. I also like the idea of a school that changes the concept of grade-levels. Instead of being 1st, 2nd, 3rd grade, you have 1st/2nd/3rd grade reading, 1/2/3 riting, 1/2/3 rithmatic. Therefore, kids have a more natural progression towards their strengths and don't hold the class back for their weaknesses. Really bad schools suck and should be subject to massive overhaul. Plus, crappy teachers need to go.

TANGENTIAL REMEDIES

We need to focus more domestically and less abroad. We need to bring our troops home and use them to secure our borders rather than let them simply atrophy. We need to embrace decentralization and the localization / village concept as much as we can, giving the federal government specific responsibilities.

Monopolies bother me and I think are bad for society and the free-market system. If we are going to regulate companies, we have to set up a manageable system. Regulators are not capable of micro-management, particularly of large companies, so the powers of regulators have to attack more broad subjects that will have a larger impact.

The financial system is also a major concern to me. Is imaginary, rather than commodity based, money really the way to go? Ron Paul talked about competing currencies, one based on silver and the other on gold, but that extends beyond my knowledge of the topic. I just don't see our nation responding well to imaginary money - we seem to be exploiting it in all the wrong ways. Would our quality of life be way down if we went back to money that was actually backed by something?

My final thought is that while protectionism is not the best way to go, to some extent we need to be self-sustaining. Dependency on the Middle-East causes concern. Dependency on other nations for food and goods causes concern. Other nations may be able to do things cheaper, but there is an unexpected cost in becoming fat and lazy. There is also the moral cost of doing business with nations that don't hold your same values (not to say business shouldn't be done with those nations). There has to be an equilibrium that would be better for our country.

EDIT: And hey, these are just off the top of my head ideas. Maybe things that are rattling around up there and not that refined. I like sharing ideas but I'm not saying all that stuff I wrote is right. Just thoughts.

 

Relying soley in private charities as an answer to this country's poverty issues is so incredibly naive that I don't know where to start with the insults...

 

Many private schools pay their teachers much less than public schools (exceptions are for truly elite schools.) But my first job out of college was at a Catholic middle school where I made $13,000 a year. I'm not sure that the teachers are better at private schools. There's been a mix of good/fair/poor teachers at every school I've attended and where I've taught.

It really all comes back to the kids, but really, not the kids. The quality of the parents is the key. Kids that come from homes with educated parents are much more prepared for school. Period.

As the school where I've taught the past 12 years continues to see a huge demographic shift, I've had to change my teaching methods. But that's okay because a teacher that isn't willing to change probably isn't willing to meet the needs of her students.

It's easier teaching children of educated parents. But it's VERY rewarding when I can get through to children of poverty. They really need their teachers.

 

Fairly spreading the burden of the poor. Ha.

When the poor start becoming productive citizens when do they pay back that burden? Oh wait.. They don't.

Thus why charity feelings are needed.

 

It's a very easy solution combined with more tax savings for those giving

 

So how much do you give to private charities a year now?

 

I think his point is it would be a lot more if he didn't have to pay taxes. As much as I like the idea of not paying taxes, if I wasn't forced to give my money up (taxes), it probably wouldn't be much more than what I already tithe and give to church now. I'd prolly spend the extra on doing a few things around the house.

 

I'm not saying rely solely on charity, but as policy, I believe trying to urge people to give in a number of ways could probably be improved upon. That and trying to nurture a feeling of community, directly, but more indirectly.

Placing the burden of the poor on those willing to help is a good place to start. It is a societal problem, but it is always better to give people a feeling of choice. I'd like to see people, to some degree at least, be able to direct the spending of their taxes. Something like on the income tax form being able to put a check next to the programs you'd like your money to go. That seems like extra paperwork, so maybe people could make direct contributions to the federal departments they love and have that taken off their taxes. Just a thought. Baseline taxes could pay for the parts not covered, but those would be less than we have currently.

Great post and well put.