Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty

Originally posted by infolurker
There is no such thing as ending poverty as there are political interests and government agencies that ensure that it cannot be won.

Since 1964 the United States has spent 15 TRILLION dollars with nothing to show for it. We are now spending a Trillion a year.

www.thenewamerican.com...$15-trillion-and-nothing-to-show-for-it

www.cato.org...

Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago. Clearly we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient. It is time to reevaluate our approach to fighting poverty. We should focus less on making poverty more comfortable and more on creating the prosperity that will get people out of poverty.

So, the richest 1%, Take ALL their money, throw it at the poor and then what? After it is used up, then what?


The ONLY way to end poverty is to "teach the poor to fish" not give them free fish.... and that isn't going to happen, who would be left to vote Democrat for more free stuff (US anyway)?

edit on 20-1-2013 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

It's not how much money you just chuck at poverty, it's how wisely it's spent.

$15 Trillion + $1 Trillion per annum is a LOT of money, but you have to bypass the corrupt, the warlords and direct it where it will do the most good.

Opposing corruption, education (real and practical, not propaganda based), health and sanitation, infrastructure both agricultural and social, technology meaning 21st century tech, not 19th century tech, lobbying to write off 3rd world debt, and the list goes on, would be good examples of better use of the money.

But the biggest help, would be a willingness to genuinely want to help, to want to end poverty. That's priceless.

Apologies, i just realised you were only talking about your own country, not poverty in general.

reply to post by FyreByrd


FyreByrd, I would like to clarify that I do not harbor a hatred towards those who are poorer than I. I do acknowledge that there are those who are going to be living off the system no matter what is tried but for the rest, my concern is that the root problem will not be addressed and those who do not fit into an participatory role in society do to lack of education or other circumstances may not change in the long run. I'm not saying it's impossible but that some people have gotten into this hole by eschewing the public education that was provided to them (yes, I know, the teachers failed to coddle them in some way...). In a third world country, I can definitely see where the potential to make a difference would actually be greater because, from what I've seen, here in the US a lot of kids don't want to learn. Contrast that to the third world coutries where the kids can barely eat never mind have a school to attend and I guarantee that those who are grateful for thier education will put it to good use and therefore make a better turn-around for themsleves and their immediate communities. I am not saying everyone is lazy, more like there has been an anti-education attitude taking place here in the US and those people that are conditioned to think that way, may not want to change. I have lived in many places and have done a fair share of volunteer work with various organizations to help the impoverished and it is tough to see cycles that don't break. I welcome a currency free, utopian society if it were possible but I do not beleive it coudl happen in my lifetime no matter the effort or the $ involved.

Apologies, i just realised you were only talking about your own country, not poverty in general.

Actually I don't think you can really address poverty without doing so on an international basis. I don't think there is actual extreme poverty in the US. I've seen things to break my heart and damn a 'loving' god but the kind of dismal poverty of other parts of the world.

Yes the original thread was about global poverty.

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Apologies, i just realised you were only talking about your own country, not poverty in general.

Actually I don't think you can really address poverty without doing so on an international basis. I don't think there is actual extreme poverty in the US. I've seen things to break my heart and damn a 'loving' god but the kind of dismal poverty of other parts of the world.

Yes the original thread was about global poverty.

come out to california....extreme poverty are in tent towns by the rivers, under bridges, out in wooded areas close to town, in ravines and gullies, by rail shipping yards...it's not hard to find, just go down the the poor side of anytown, USA, and ask....i went down just this morning to get some milk, while it was still dark, and on the side of a 7-11, there were 4 or 5 shopping carts loaded, with people in dirty sleeping bags on the ground next to them. just because they are not camped out by the mall, or the town square, doesn't mean that they are not out there

Originally posted by evc1shop
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

FyreByrd, I would like to clarify that I do not harbor a hatred towards those who are poorer than I. I do acknowledge that there are those who are going to be living off the system no matter what is tried but for the rest, my concern is that the root problem will not be addressed and those who do not fit into an participatory role in society do to lack of education or other circumstances may not change in the long run. I'm not saying it's impossible but that some people have gotten into this hole by eschewing the public education that was provided to them (yes, I know, the teachers failed to coddle them in some way...). In a third world country, I can definitely see where the potential to make a difference would actually be greater because, from what I've seen, here in the US a lot of kids don't want to learn. Contrast that to the third world coutries where the kids can barely eat never mind have a school to attend and I guarantee that those who are grateful for thier education will put it to good use and therefore make a better turn-around for themsleves and their immediate communities. I am not saying everyone is lazy, more like there has been an anti-education attitude taking place here in the US and those people that are conditioned to think that way, may not want to change. I have lived in many places and have done a fair share of volunteer work with various organizations to help the impoverished and it is tough to see cycles that don't break. I welcome a currency free, utopian society if it were possible but I do not beleive it coudl happen in my lifetime no matter the effort or the $ involved.

I was thinking globally and I appreciate your concerns (and thank you for your civility). It's hard for anyone to change from the familiar, even the horrible familiar but one must make a start. From a start, those few carry the possiblities to others. The point being to start regardless of the difficulties. You always have outliers. No scheme is perfect - but I sense a distain for the idea and ideal poverty irradication. I recall in the sixites - there was a sense that we could overcome poverty - the problems that came up (in the US) needed to be addressed not used at excuses to quit and defund.

Poverty is such a waste. We live in a wasteful throw-away society in the west that is degrading the planent and us as a species. Think of the wonderful communities and farms that could be reclaimed with all those educated and willing hands - it wouldn't even be expensive.

Think of the last two Olympics, the opening ceremonies. One in Bejing, China, the other London, England (and please don't start calling me a commie for using this example).

The ceremonies in Bejing were beautiful and came off without a visable hitch using people power. Inexpensive people did the most amazing things. Now to London where there were technical problems still lovely, but technology got in the way. The big difference - use people - no profit to big business: use machines - big profit on purchase and maintainence.

Technology has it's place and use but people are so much better at so many things. Medical care - we need more people in medical positions and less relaiance on machines. People are an expense and machines are considered an asset. The accounting is all backwards. To end property people have to be treated and valued as assets not expendable resources.

come out to california....extreme poverty are in tent towns by the rivers, under bridges, out in wooded areas close to town, in ravines and gullies, by rail shipping yards...not hard to find just go down the the poor side of anytown, USA, and ask.

I live in California, I see homeless people everyday; but they have food and rudimentary services available. That is not the extreme poverty of refugee camps in Africa or the Middle East.

You and I have never seen real poverty.

Originally posted by FyreByrd

come out to california....extreme poverty are in tent towns by the rivers, under bridges, out in wooded areas close to town, in ravines and gullies, by rail shipping yards...not hard to find just go down the the poor side of anytown, USA, and ask.

I live in California, I see homeless people everyday; but they have food and rudimentary services available. That is not the extreme poverty of refugee camps in Africa or the Middle East.

You and I have never seen real poverty.

aren't you drawing the line alittle thin there?....yeah, we do not have half naked people walking or crawling around that weigh 60 pounds, and in a few short days could be dead from thirst, malnutrition, or disease. but i think a person livng out of a shopping cart is extreme poverty, you obviously do not...i guess it's just a lifestyle choice for them, just one big wandering hobo adventure.

reply to post by FyreByrd


I like your comparison of the 2 Olympics. I had not seen it before as I do not watch tv in my house due to the presence of my toddler here, with the exception of a few specific programs of interest when they pop up. I did catch bits and pieces of them but not enough to see the distinct differences in approach taken by each country. I see you, and others here on ATS, have a better grasp of the world's poverty situation than I so I am learning as I read through the postings. TY.

we should all have to look after the less fortunate. I see a homeless man sleeping on a bench and I will go to the store and buy a sandwich and a drink and leave it next to him till he wakes up... and im broke myself I make less then 15k a year and I have it in my heart to help someone less fortunate why cant the people in the 700million$ house do it either ? is sickening to me that I have to bust my ass to make # money but all they have done for the last 200 years is sit there and tell people what to do. and won't share with anyone even there employee's my manager once asked corporate to let us have a party for employees she asked for 200$ budget for pizza and decorations and they told her no... now this one store makes 20,000$ a day! on a good day and we cant have a 200$ once a year party? that's just ridicules so my manager and the other assistant managers made a pool from the HARD EARNED money and gave the employees a pizza party with there own money.

greed is the root of all evil if we all learned to share more the world would be so beautiful.

reply to post by FyreByrd


i say, the worlds poor could end the rich. ^^

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

i say, the worlds poor could end the rich. ^^

Ya... Where is Maximilien Robespierre when you need him?

I live in California, I see homeless people everyday; but they have food and rudimentary services available. That is not the extreme poverty of refugee camps in Africa or the Middle East.

You and I have never seen real poverty.

aren't you drawing the line alittle thin there?....yeah, we do not have half naked people walking or crawling around that weigh 60 pounds, and in a few short days could be dead from thirst, malnutrition, or disease. but i think a person livng out of a shopping cart is extreme poverty, you obviously do not...i guess it's just a lifestyle choice for them, just one big wandering hobo adventure.

I don't know how to respond to this - poverty is on a spectrum as are most things. If a big city US homeless man with a grocery cart is extreme poverty it doesn't leave any room for the existance of those with even less.... and there are many with less.

Originally posted by tierdofbs
we should all have to look after the less fortunate. I see a homeless man sleeping on a bench and I will go to the store and buy a sandwich and a drink and leave it next to him till he wakes up... and im broke myself I make less then 15k a year and I have it in my heart to help someone less fortunate why cant the people in the 700million$ house do it either ? is sickening to me that I have to bust my ass to make # money but all they have done for the last 200 years is sit there and tell people what to do. and won't share with anyone even there employee's my manager once asked corporate to let us have a party for employees she asked for 200$ budget for pizza and decorations and they told her no... now this one store makes 20,000$ a day! on a good day and we cant have a 200$ once a year party? that's just ridicules so my manager and the other assistant managers made a pool from the HARD EARNED money and gave the employees a pizza party with there own money.

greed is the root of all evil if we all learned to share more the world would be so beautiful.

I'm with you friend - but when you use the words 'have to' you get people's ire up ("you're not the boss of me") and not helpful (in a spiritual sense). Just keep being a consistant and quiet example.

I don't understand why people don't do more - I know some well-off people - some that help and some that don't - the ones that help (quietly) seem happier.

The whole point of the thread was to ferret out different points of view on an easily solveable problem and it has done so. Understanding others leads to more effective action on all scales.

reply to post by 11235813213455


well if the usa continues the way it does, we may very well see the phoenix ancestors rise again!

now what did i do with those plans for the guillotine, hrmmm

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by seamus

 

Communes are not communism, in the context of what I'm talking about.

[...]

The scientific socialists/communists didn't want communal living, they wanted workers common ownership of the means of production. That can be either cooperatives, or individuals working a small plot of land by themselves. It had nothing to do with your life outside of work.

And what I'm saying is that both in communal AND in communist enviroment, where ownership is collectivized, the facilities degrade, full stop. It was well documented in the Soviet Union.

I don't know...about 7.5 billon people make less than 30 bucks a month. Give each 10,000 per year and that would be 75 trillion....still don't think that would cure anything....

Originally posted by seamus

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by seamus

 

Communes are not communism, in the context of what I'm talking about.

[...]

The scientific socialists/communists didn't want communal living, they wanted workers common ownership of the means of production. That can be either cooperatives, or individuals working a small plot of land by themselves. It had nothing to do with your life outside of work.

And what I'm saying is that both in communal AND in communist enviroment, where ownership is collectivized, the facilities degrade, full stop. It was well documented in the Soviet Union.

...and the Soviet Union was neither communal nor communist.

Originally posted by seamus
And what I'm saying is that both in communal AND in communist enviroment, where ownership is collectivized, the facilities degrade, full stop. It was well documented in the Soviet Union.

But the Soviet Union wasn't communist. They did not have worker ownership, the means of production was owned and controlled by the state. State-capitalism, not communism.

I'll ask you this question so maybe it might help this sink in... How can anarchists be socialists/communists if socialism is what happened in the USSR?

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists." Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

We're just going around in circles here, two pages ago I explained how Marxism is not socialism, and the confusion that causes. If want my answers then read my replies, I'm tired of repeating myself.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by seamus
And what I'm saying is that both in communal AND in communist enviroment, where ownership is collectivized, the facilities degrade, full stop. It was well documented in the Soviet Union.

But the Soviet Union wasn't communist. They did not have worker ownership, the means of production was owned and controlled by the state. State-capitalism, not communism.

I'll ask you this question so maybe it might help this sink in... How can anarchists be socialists/communists if socialism is what happened in the USSR?

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists." Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

We're just going around in circles here, two pages ago I explained how Marxism is not socialism, and the confusion that causes. If want my answers then read my replies, I'm tired of repeating myself.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 1/23/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Because the socialist and communists use the anarchists to collapse sections of... If not all the capitalist infrastructure into the socialist or communist system.

The anarchists are the useful idiots. And therein lays the rub because what motivates the anarchists to do what anarchists do (occupy wallstreet) you have the socialist and communists selling them a bill of goods (lies) about worker ownership and the like and how everything is just going to work somehow and how (in short) and they will have utopia on the he other side of the glorious revolution.

But what happens every time? Well the purists communists and socialists say that they get taken over by the greedy and power hungry sometime during the revolution and they never get to really put into place that which they fought for. But history proves that the end results are the true faces of socialism and communism.

As you did so did I explain pages ago Communism and Socialism are parasitic to capitalism. They need capitalism to because they could never exist on their own let alone start up from the ground level.

This isn't the mid 1800's. This is what they are now and not what they were. You're trying to push the utopian, idealistic and very simplistic face of these atrocities to other would-be useful idiots. Like I've also said, you're hiding behind these out-moded definitions in an attempt at the old tactics that communism and socialism have never failed because they have never been really tried. I responded to that with BS. It's been tried and tried over and over again. A good example for everyone to read up on is the Owenite movement in the United States during the 1800's.

Seamus your right.. and proven so by history.

Screw the socialist and communists for I want to live better than everyone else. I want the good life, not the life that just keeps me a live, I'm better than most so I can rise to the top and live a very good life. I work hard for it, unlike so many do don't....

And so lies the reason why communisum can never work, will NEVER work.... Communisum is a dream for people who have nothing to begin with and want more.... You didn't see 40 year old people who had a good job as part of the 99%ers...

Human nature will win every time over communisum...kind of like it might look good on paper but in practice it fails miserably.