Question Concerning Poverty

[ARealConservative]

I am a firm Ron Paul supporter and agree with him on nearly everything, most specifically his stance on foreign policy and personal liberties. One question I have, however, is whether or not he has a specific plan to alleviate poverty in America.

Yes!

The plan is three fold

1) Return to sound money. Inflation creates poverty.

2) Eliminate government burdens. Taxes drive costs up, and drive purchasing power down. Even if you don't directly pay taxes, you pay for the increased price of goods caused by taxes.

3) Elimination of the safety net will force people into not making the same bad decisions over and over. Nobody is going to bail them out time and time again. Once this stupidity is removed from society, the burden of charity will be reduced allowing us to focus on the truly needy. Call it "tough love", but it does work.

 

[AutoDas]

What's so bad about poverty in the United States? All of those households have a microwave and even a television. They certainly don't deserve any charity. Poverty instills self-reliance into the hearts of people. Naturally, the unproductive, lazy and unfit will not rise above their meager wages.

 

[DriftWood]

I am a firm Ron Paul supporter and agree with him on nearly everything, most specifically his stance on foreign policy and personal liberties. One question I have, however, is whether or not he has a specific plan to alleviate poverty in America.

I truly commend Dr. Paul's insistence on curtailing the corrupt influence of big business and big government alike, and believe this will go a long way in reversing the devastating gap between the rich and the poor. In addition, Dr. Paul wishes to cut back the War on Drugs, a policy that does more to attack the impoverished in our nation than quell the use of drugs. I've also heard Dr. Paul say that it would not be his first priority to attack the welfare apparatus, a view I appreciate.

All this being said, however, I wonder if, aside from fixing many of the negative forces underway in this country affecting the poor, Dr. Paul has any positive/progressive ideas as to how we might seek to rectify this situation? I will vote for Dr. Paul regardless, so please don't hesitate to answer as truthfully as possible.

Capitalism means not everyone will be equally rich. Socialism means everyone will be equally poor. There is nothing wrong with a growing relative gap between the rich and the poor, as long as the poor are richer than they where before.

When socialists and democrats tax to help the poor they damage the economy to the extent that everyone is worse off. The poor stay poor and the rich become poor.

Government can not create wealth, only the market can do that. So all the govt should do is to stop holding the market back so that the poor can grow richer.

The problem with poverty in most of Africa and many 3rd world countries is that corrupt governments tax people so much that the market dies. Free market capitalism has the power to lift Africa out of poverty just as it has lifted most of Asia. All the govt would need to do is let it happen.

Cheers

 

[majinkoola]

I think the key is that reducing regulations and taxation in America along with bringing back the gold standard would really kick the American economy into gear. Investors would not have to worry about the adverse consequences of inflation, would not invest in the wrong places, and with the ease of entry, investors would be flooding into the country. We'd basically undercut the rest of the civilized world, especially Europe.

This is the biggest thing: jobs would come back. Good-paying jobs. And it wouldn't be a lot of jobs that we have today that exist solely to comply with gov't standards, or to take advantage of all the money in Washington. Combine that with the fact that the drug war is over and it isn't lucrative to sell drugs (which is how a lot of people get into using drugs, I know several), as well as the fact that welfare doesn't exist, there would be a lot more people working in jobs that produce more. Driving down prices for everyone.

Yes, there'd still be poor people who truly need help but it'd be a whole lot less. With the increased prosperity and reduced number of people who need help I'm sure they'd be taken care of. As RP said, there weren't people in the streets in the 50's.

 

[LittleLightShining]

What exactly would President Paul do with welfare entitlements when elected?

I get the sound money, free market aspects. I understand that he would immediately end welfare to illegals, but how would he transition from nanny-state to independence?

I'm having an ongoing discussion with a Welsh ultra-liberal socialist and he is convinced that Ron Paul's policies would create an America full of uneducated, starving people. He hasn't done much reading about RP to base his assumptions on, but I want to give him a more sensible viewpoint of a Libertarian Constitutional society.

 

[countrykidz4freedom]

The issue of poverty: restore the economy by quitting some of the programs which have driven so many into poverty in the first place-stop the programs that steal from others to give to other people. Also, help the poor by giving them some choices that will help their overall costs and also help them to get better paying jobs. This doesn't mean necessarily to give them free food, or subsidy checks)
There can be incentives to help them learn to grow some of their own food-I know people will say you can't grow your own food if you live in an apartment-well, yes you can grow some of your own food in 5 gallon buckets even there.

Also, I think it would be a great, if there were free classes available to teach people how to save on things like their fuel, electric bills, clothing, & just basic overall general day to day costs.

In general people need to become more independent and to learn again how to
make the dollar stretch.

There are a million ways to help oneself, if someone truly has a desire to better themselves-but it doesn't come from expecting handouts. For instance, I know of some families who have decided to live together for a time to share costs until they can get back on their feet financially. Basically, people need to learn again to live within their means. It doesn't mean someone has to accept that they will always be poor-set goals for themselves, start small, and as they gain confidence, by reaching the goals, take bigger steps. The exhilarating feeling a young child feels who just takes his/her first steps of independence and freely moving without his parents carrying him about, is very similar to the feeling of doing more for oneself.

 

[therealjjj77]

Also, help the poor by giving them some choices that will help their overall costs and also help them to get better paying jobs. This doesn't mean necessarily to give them free food, or subsidy checks)
There can be incentives to help them learn to grow some of their own food-I know people will say you can't grow your own food if you live in an apartment-well, yes you can grow some of your own food in 5 gallon buckets even there.

Also, I think it would be a great, if there were free classes available to teach people how to save on things like their fuel, electric bills, clothing, & just basic overall general day to day costs.

In general people need to become more independent and to learn again how to
make the dollar stretch.

There are a million ways to help oneself, if someone truly has a desire to better themselves-but it doesn't come from expecting handouts. For instance, I know of some families who have decided to live together for a time to share costs until they can get back on their feet financially. Basically, people need to learn again to live within their means. It doesn't mean someone has to accept that they will always be poor-set goals for themselves, start small, and as they gain confidence, by reaching the goals, take bigger steps. The exhilarating feeling a young child feels who just takes his/her first steps of independence and freely moving without his parents carrying him about, is very similar to the feeling of doing more for oneself.

That type of education sounds like a job for churches and other charitable private organizations. They would be far better at administering those things and then those who want to give someone a hand up in such a way could do so voluntarily whether it was their time or money.