Wednesday, March 02, 2016

Presidential candidate's plans for reducing poverty

I found this a fascinating read. Oh how I wish that we had such variation and delineation of ideas in this country.

Ron Haskins lays out the difference between 1/ Democrat and Republican voter attitudes to poverty and 2/ the various anti-poverty/ poverty (some will make poverty worse) policies espoused by individual candidates.

My pick is Cruz' flat tax though his social conservatism would preclude me voting for him.

Haskins concludes:

 The main difference: The Republicans would transfer authority over how the money is spent to parents and to states and localities. If the specific proposals being offered by Bush, Kasich, and Rubio on programs for the poor were adopted, it would represent a historic shift in responsibility and control from the federal government to the states and to parents. By contrast, Clinton and Sanders would greatly increase the amount of money controlled by the federal government, an increase mainly secured through tax increases on the rich.


Anonymous said...

The increasing taxes on the rich is an easy path for socialists to take but I always wonder who decides what "rich" is.

Why be against a social conservative when he proposes to let you do what you want more than is currently allowed and even dismantle the IRS? Cruz holds to the constitution, appears to be firmly in favor of separation of church and state and he's not going to make you go to church or anything so that seems like an ad hominem attack.


Lindsay Mitchell said...

He's anti-abortion and gay marriage. I didn't "attack" him. Merely said I wouldn't vote for him (if I was an American).

Anonymous said...

I always wonder who decides what "rich" is.

anyone with two bits to rub together.

It is not the constitutional role of government to reduce poverty.
It is the constitutional role of government to protect citizen's life, liberty, and property.

Alison said...

Anonymous @ 6:23pm reminded me of a comment I read on another blog several years ago:

"In a Press release from Green Headquarters in Riverton today Mr Norman Russel announced a number of inter-related initiatives.

After the success of the recent QE economic release, the Green Party has devised QE2, a complementary plan to install a Republic in NZ
In honour of the impending visit to Riverton by Prince Charles and Camilla,

New Heads of State.

The Green Party will announce Jeanette Fitzsimons and Judy Bailey as Joint Mothers of the Nation to replace the Royal Family. (QE2)

New National Anthem.

As the country moves to a Republican State, as against a Democratic State, the new anthem is a revival of the Shona Laing classic standard "Glad I'm not a Kennedy". The official version will be launched by the Southland equivalent of the Vienna Boys Choir. This mad-regal group is from the combined youth voices of the "Growing Greens Group" the Boy Sprouts.

New Language.

The Greens desire to be Politically Correct allows for some new terms to be coined as part of the overall QE initiative.

New Currency.
In line with the QE development plan, the Royal Mint will be replaced with the Green Munt (GM). At the outset, the new currency will be munted in Southland.
Coins will be of aluminium from the ex-Rio Tinto smelter in Bluff. The coins will be know as the "Razoo", giving credence to the term "NZ does not have a Brass Razoo". The first coin produced will be the $1 million dollar coin. This Jeanettecally modified coin will feature the heads of our two Mothers of the Nation, one on each side. As a consequence of this modification the coin will have no tail. Tossers will immediately recognise this as a win-win currency. The Green Government will distribute these coins in pairs to all lower socio-economic groups so that they will have two coins to rub together, eliminating the argument against poverty.
The paper currency will be munted at a new plant in Mataura, using fibre from carbon-sequestering trees planted on redundant dairying land. The first notes will be the $10million, $50million, and $100million denominations which will cover the range for normal household budgets.

New Education Qualification.

As a consequence of the Green Government distributing a pair of the new Razoo's to all families of lower decile schools so that they will have two coins to rub together, the argument against poverty being responsible for education failures in public schools will no longer be available.
Consequently, the Teachers Union has agreed to implement a new reporting regime to be known as NCEAA . Students in the lowest 27% of underachievers will be classified with "No Chance of Education At All" as a minimum standard for entry into Charter Schools."

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the "attack" word - it was not meant in the context you take. Cruz may be against all sorts of things but that doesn't mean he'll remove your rights to do what you want. Many rights would revert to the individual states to allow or disallow. On that basis it may make sense to go with the least objectionable option rather than one that really sucks on big ticket things like the constitution and taxes but likes abortion and that latest poster cause most don't really seem to care about, gay marriage.