Phil, Did you actually read the article? And did you read your own comment?
Kent Clizbe
1

I wondering if you read it? You’re not disagreeing with its assertions about our current systems of fighting poverty. “The War on Poverty” has been based in the wrong assumptions about poverty itself. We are wasting money by fighting symptoms and not the cause.

Granted, it would take a big program to eradicate poverty in the U.S. According to economist Matt Bruenig’s calculations, it would cost $175 billion. But poverty is even more expensive. A 2013 study estimated the costs of child poverty at as much as $500 billion a year.

Instead of eliminating poverty, we’re keeping it around with the wasteful programs you’re arguing against. You keep on pointing to the past fifty years of spending on “fighting poverty” and deflecting my point that providing basic income is an efficient solution; even proponents of the broken idea of handing out “opportunities” disagree with both of us.

Call basic income a pipedream if you want, but this article (which by the way is a summary of research findings) gives compelling points for rethinking our assumptions of the poor.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.