The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[New Mexican Disaster]

I'm wrong. The percentage in poverty has come down since Johnson declared War on Poverty. Looks like it was already headed down prior to his declaration and has remained between 10 and 15 percent since the early 70s.

[ATTACH]6385[/ATTACH]

Inflation?????

[imanihonjin]

What is the most efficient or equitable way to utilize the resources we have?

Well regulated capitalism.

[Topper]

What is the most efficient or equitable way to utilize the resources we have?

Speculating without the benefits of detailed statistical analysis, my proposal would be to deviate from the current model by reducing government direct involvement in some aspects, reducing the cost of government through the curtailment of government benefits for sectors of its employees, and using market forces through strategic inducements.

First, use government pursuant to its police powers for assistance. For example, government currently provides some measure of assistance in many instances through the Social Security Administration for certain citizens with anomalous diseases, by that I mean rare but often devastating, such MS, cerebral palsy, autism and other learning disabilities. This is society's choice to spread the risk of something almost no family can afford, and which is almost impossible to insure against.

Second, society has decided it wants a social network of at least temporary support for the indigent. The programs can be better designed to be connected to work, to rehabilitate persons. One of the perplexing problems for which I have not heard adequate answers, how do you rehabilitate some of the people in the poverty system? There is a certain segment which is almost permanently unemployable. Most of us have not encountered these people. Society has determined that children shouldn't go hungry no matter the reason.

Third, we need methods of encouraging the financial industry to lend to sectors for business purposes. I know we have small business administration loans, but the restrictions on those have added up. What if banks were encouraged through tax incentives and regulations regarding the portfolio make up requiring a certain percentage to be not just "women owned or disadvantaged minority owned businesses" but a certain percentage for all lenders to be to small businesses vis-a-vis large businesses. I am struggling here to find a way for more money to be available to small businesses which employ the majority of our country's employees but which have not recovered in proportion to the large industries which have survived the Great Recession, gobbled up competitors and now have a quasi-monopolies in certain industry sectors.

Fourth, we need to find a way of making re-education for significant portions of the workforce. These need not be based upon loans, as the debt for the workers becomes an anchor. The problem with this device is government's slow response in determining what is needed and provided. So if government could fund private industry educators for re-education awarding new contracts only if those private companies succeed in educating and placing those trainees in new higher paying jobs.

[Eddie]

Hopefully, Canada does a better job elevating its poor into the middle class than the US. I don't know how many trillions the US has spent on entitlements since Johnson declared his War on Poverty, but last I saw the percentage of poor in the US is about the same or more as when he declared the war.

Sounds like the war on poverty has worked out about as well as the war on drugs.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm wrong. The percentage in poverty has come down since Johnson declared War on Poverty. Looks like it was already headed down prior to his declaration and has remained between 10 and 15 percent since the early 70s.

[ATTACH]6385[/ATTACH]

Totally misleading plot. A percentage on one side and a sum on the other. Both the population and the economy are growing. Of course that number will go up.

Welfare spending as a percentage of GDP has been relatively constant since ~1980. Averages about 3 per cent and varies between 2 and 4 per cent depending on the state of the economy.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Well regulated capitalism.

Nice in theory, but given that government is horrible at nearly everything it touches, is this possible?

[Topper]

Nice in theory, but given that government is horrible at nearly everything it touches, is this possible?

Aye, there's the rub.

How do we monitor the regulators to ensure they do their jobs well?

[imanihonjin]

Nice in theory, but given that government is horrible at nearly everything it touches, is this possible?

Nothing is going to be perfect, so keep government to the bear minimum to protect basic human rights. As it is, the government just keeps getting larger and larger and isn't able to do anything well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Joe Biden not running. Hillary breathes a huge sigh of relief.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politi...ion/index.html

[TripletDaddy]

Joe Biden not running. Hillary breathes a huge sigh of relief.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politi...ion/index.html

translation: Dems tell Biden to step off.

[il Padrino Ute]

Joe Biden not running. Hillary breathes a huge sigh of relief.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politi...ion/index.html

Can't say I blame him, as he seems to know that it's best to not allow the Clinton Machine to viciously rip him to pieces.

On another topic, the writer of that article made me laugh with his claim that Mrs. Clinton deftly handled tough questions in the Dem debate. Ha! She was thrown nothing but softballs.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Well regulated capitalism.

What do you mean by well regulated capitalism? What specifically would this do in order to alleviate poverty?

[Jeff Lebowski]

What do you mean by well regulated capitalism? What specifically would this do in order to alleviate poverty?

You are a masochist.

[YOhio]

I'm still holding out. HRC won't be the nominee and Biden will.

[ERCougar]

Speculating without the benefits of detailed statistical analysis, my proposal would be to deviate from the current model by reducing government direct involvement in some aspects, reducing the cost of government through the curtailment of government benefits for sectors of its employees, and using market forces through strategic inducements.

First, use government pursuant to its police powers for assistance. For example, government currently provides some measure of assistance in many instances through the Social Security Administration for certain citizens with anomalous diseases, by that I mean rare but often devastating, such MS, cerebral palsy, autism and other learning disabilities. This is society's choice to spread the risk of something almost no family can afford, and which is almost impossible to insure against.

Second, society has decided it wants a social network of at least temporary support for the indigent. The programs can be better designed to be connected to work, to rehabilitate persons. One of the perplexing problems for which I have not heard adequate answers, how do you rehabilitate some of the people in the poverty system? There is a certain segment which is almost permanently unemployable. Most of us have not encountered these people. Society has determined that children shouldn't go hungry no matter the reason.

Third, we need methods of encouraging the financial industry to lend to sectors for business purposes. I know we have small business administration loans, but the restrictions on those have added up. What if banks were encouraged through tax incentives and regulations regarding the portfolio make up requiring a certain percentage to be not just "women owned or disadvantaged minority owned businesses" but a certain percentage for all lenders to be to small businesses vis-a-vis large businesses. I am struggling here to find a way for more money to be available to small businesses which employ the majority of our country's employees but which have not recovered in proportion to the large industries which have survived the Great Recession, gobbled up competitors and now have a quasi-monopolies in certain industry sectors.

Fourth, we need to find a way of making re-education for significant portions of the workforce. These need not be based upon loans, as the debt for the workers becomes an anchor. The problem with this device is government's slow response in determining what is needed and provided. So if government could fund private industry educators for re-education awarding new contracts only if those private companies succeed in educating and placing those trainees in new higher paying jobs.

I have no idea what you're suggesting here. First plank - disability payments. You want to expand them? I have to admit that I wasn't expecting that but I'm still not sure if that's what youre suggesting. Second plank is a vague combination of welfare and food stamps. Again, I have no idea what you're suggesting,other than connect it to work training, which would represent another expansion of another government program. Third plank looks eerily similar to what brought us our latest financial crisis. And the fourth is another new government program,although I'm unclear on who the target would be.
So overall, a massive expansion of government. Okay, but what's wrong with progressive taxation again? Not enough government involvement?