http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/immigrations_poverty_trap.html
http://www.cis.org/articles/poverty_study/execsummary.html
2007-09-26
03:48:49
·
10 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Well middleclassandnotquiet the numbers are clear, the rest of us are doing fine.
And again, I am NOT saying kick these people out - - - ALL I'm saying is when 1 million poor people come here every year, legally and illegally combined, for 20 years, and the number of poor people goes up by 2.9 million, guess what, people are moving UP OUT of poverty at a rapid pace, just being replaced by NEW poor people!
2007-09-26
04:09:18 ·
update #1
Labken what percentage of native born Americans are under the age of 25? You have to look at who these people are - of the bottom 20% of households by income, less than 15% will still be in the bottom 20% a decade later - - - that's because they're immigrants, students, etc.... - - - is a grad student with his own apartment, working at store 24 to pay for books and grocery bills, is he poor?
2007-09-26
04:11:40 ·
update #2
The poor in America are better off then most middle class in most countries. Poverty is something that no one wants to have, the question is: How many poor are willing to finish an education, work hard, stay married, have children when they can afford to support them, and yes, have children that would grow up with 2 parents?
Until each one as an individual takes responsibilities as their own, nobody can solve their poverty
2007-09-26 04:03:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bego?a R 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
A plan was floated a while ago by a former employee of the UN that would cut in half the number of people living in extreme poverty in only ten years -- which would go far. You start by working with the non-corrupt goverments in the most impoverished areas. Each village gets a good road and a truck. The farmers in each get high-yield seed and fertalizer. They agree to donate some of their crop to the local schools, so every child can go to school (and not spend the whole day trying to find something to eat). They use the truck to take the rest of their surplus crops directly to market, so they get the profit. The trucks can also bring in needed supplies, such as meds. Also, becaus they have good roads, in case of natural disaster, help can get to them. Over time, others will see how well this works, and pressure their governments to join the program. Cut in half the number of people waking up in the morning not knowing whether or not they'll eat that day. In ten short years. The micro-loans plan is also an excellent idea. You make small loans available to women so they can fund their own business. When they don't depend on the local rich for their work, and can keep the profit themselves, they easily pay back the loans and are making enough to feed themselves and their families. It's had great success in lifting entire families out of poverty. The current situation, of increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer is creating MORE poverty, and must be reversed. Strengthening unions and collective bargaining is probably the most important method. The progressive income tax is another. (Currently, taxes keep being slashed for those who have all the money.)
2016-05-19 00:21:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by maryanne 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I belive both would be the case.
Trust me there are still a large number of American Citizens which live in poverty, as there are a number of US residents which are not citizens living in poverty.
Thirty-six percent of full-time, year-round workers born outside the United States earned less than $20,000 in 1999; this compares with 21 percent of their native counterparts who were at that level.
Take a look at that again 21 percent of Native Born citizens made less then $20,000 in 1999. Obviously poverty isn't just related to immigrants.
In 1999, 16.8 percent of foreign-born residents were living below the poverty level, compared with 11.2 percent of natives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Galt were not talking about people being able to afford a cadillac, were talkign about people makign enough money to pay for food, clothing and maybe reliable transportation to get them to and from there work.
Additionaly poverty will never be solved. Poverty as defined by Meriam Webster is the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions. The more money there is the greater the amount that would be socially acceptable. However we should ensure in some manner that everyone (willing) has the ability to provide there family with basic needs.
2007-09-26 03:53:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by labken1817 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Never solved US poverty. It's convenient to blame immigration instead of job and manufacturing outsourcing to other countries. It's the trickle down theory. Outsourcing is great for US(international) manufacturers and great for our pocketbooks in terms of cheap goods. But really bad in terms of good jobs.
Even if the 8 or 12 million illegal immigrants left tomorrow, would people be happy cleaning motel rooms instead of a good manufacturing job? Those jobs are gone anyway, for the most part.
Edit: Jobwise, I'm just fine. But I won't be cleaning motel rooms for minimum wage either. I can't think of any of those jobs that I want.
2007-09-26 04:01:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
LBJ declared "War on Poverty". Democrats unleashed trillions of dollars on poverty over the years. 6 trillion (inflation not factored in) last count if the figures are correct on many varied programs. And when last I looked poverty was still rampant.
Who knows maybe Christ was right when he said,"The poor will be with you always".
2007-09-26 04:01:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by namsaev 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Only a person willing to work for themselves can "solve" there own poverty. It's not the taxpayers job to make sure everyone can drive a Cadillac.
2007-09-26 03:53:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Is there a solution to poverty? Some people don't try, or end up in such bad circumstances they can't recover. Only fully implemented socialism could prevent that.
2007-09-26 03:51:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Pfo 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Much of poverty is due to cultural influences, so that would need to change before we could actually solve poverty.
2007-09-26 03:55:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by almost3am 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No one can solve poverty - we just created a welfare state.
2007-09-26 03:51:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
not sure...
I'll have to pose that question to the next homeless vetran I meet at the soup kitchen..
2007-09-26 03:52:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋