A debate on a plan

1. Does increasing education eliminate poverty or does eliminating poverty increase education? Proponent showed only a correlation, not cause and effect. I gave the example of India, in which high educational levels did not eliminate, or even dramatically reduce, poverty. What dramatically reduced poverty in India was ending their ill-advised experiment in democratic socialism. Nonetheless, poverty still remains in India despite a good educational system. Another example is the economy of the Soviet Union, which crashed despite a good educational system. The U.S. has both a free economy and a good educational system, but poverty remains. I grant that further improvements in education will make some improvement in reducing poverty, but the statistics Proponent offered showed that the probable improvement is at most 7%. Note also that the very high mobility also indicates that the educational system is not a major bar to moving out of poverty. However good or bad the education system, people move into and out of poverty in the US in one or two generations. The education system does not change that rapidly, so the main factors must lie outside of education. 2. The data Proponent offers for the efficacy of vouchers is for a single Catholic school in Milwaukee, which was not even established to being attended predominantly by poor people. If highly motivated people have access to a better education system, I grant that they will get a better education. However, highly motivated people will escape poverty for the most part anyway. Proponent must demonstrate that improved education alone, independent of other factors, substantially reduces poverty on a statistical basis. 3. Proponent makes an assertion that immigrants who do not have access to superior schools will generally not escape poverty. He offers no proof whatsoever of that assertion. Proponent has granted that poor immigrants tend to settle in poor areas, that those areas tend to have poor schools, and that nonetheless the immigrants quickly escape poverty. Therefore he has granted all the generalities which contradict his specific assertion. I grant that better schools would provide marginal help, but there is no showing that is the key factor and Proponent has in effect granted that it is not. 4. Most Section 8 housing is not built by the government, it is provided by the free market. The government provides rent subsides to the owners of the housing to make it affordable. Proponent has not shown that the free market has failed to provide sufficient Section 8 housing outside of inner cities, which he calls "ghettos." He assumes that to be true, and he proposes a government building program to provide more housing outside of cites. Housing outside of inner cities is in fact in oversupply, so how is building more of it going to help anything? The fact is that people could always relocate if they chose to, they simple choose not to. The reasons they choose not to include ties to family, community, and culture. Those who are in poverty due to problems with mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, and inappropriate social values get better services in the central cities that elsewhere, so they will not be inclined to move. 5. Proponent asserts that "Section 8 housing does not let people live wherever they choose to live, it lets them live in areas that are specially designated for Section 8 housing, and that creates ghettos." This is false. Section 8 is a rent subsidy program that provides payment to private landlords to accommodate low income renters. It operates throughout the United States, and is as available in rural New Mexico as it is in urban Detroit. It is a voucher program. I remind Proponent of the virtues of voucher programs: "Section 8, or the Housing Choice Voucher Program, is a Federal housing program which provides housing assistance to low-income renters and homeowners. This assistance comes in the form of rental subsidies, limiting the monthly rent payment of the assistance recipient." http://www.affordablehousingonline.com... 6. Proponent grants that goals are not plans. Therefore it is not an argument in favor of his plan. 7. Proponent claimed his plan would eliminate poverty. He now grants that a certain part of poverty cannot be eliminated. This concedes that his plan will not work. The best he can do is to argue that poverty that is a result of mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, and inappropriate social values (those values that lead to an unwillingness to work hard) are an insignificant part of total poverty. What statistics are there to prove that? The notion is clearly contradicted by the rapid escape from poverty of penniless immigrants who arrive in the US with very high motivation. A prime example are the middle class people expelled from Cuba by Castro, who have very rapidly succeeded in Florida. Refugees from rural Vietnam and Cambodia are another good example. In a society like the US that has many opportunities, motivation is the primary factor for success. This is true even if the opportunities are imperfect. I am not denying that families end in poverty for other reasons, such as personal disasters including illness and accidents. I think that the government should help such people. However, the help they need has nothing to do with the "eliminate poverty plan" offered here. Those people simply need money. 8. Professor Blumberg cites only the statistic that half the metropolitan poor live in suburbs. He gives no statistic on how many lack cars. We know that overall 75% of the poor have cars. To evaluate the effectiveness of providing cars we need to know how many people in poverty simultaneously (1) lack cars, (2) could use cars more effectively than public transportation, (3) are not disabled in such a way that they cannot drive, and (4) and are motivated to use a car to get a job. The upper limit is the 25% who lack cars. So what is the real number? Is it 5%? Proponent has made no argument that his plan would have a substantial effect. The problem of taking time to commute to work is not solved by having a car. Particularly in urban areas, commuting by car can take longer than commuting by mass transit. I am not arguing it wouldn't help some small percentage. So would cell phones and computers. For the poor who are motivated, the best method is to give those people money and let them spend it as they see fit. Giving people money, however, is not part of Proponents plan. This indicates that Proponent does not trust the poor to spend it correctly, an assumption which is often correct. This in turn acknowledges that the problem is primarily a social one, not something he addresses. 9. Proponent reasserts that his goal is to end poverty, but makes no argument that his plan will accomplish that goal. 10. Proponent grants that his plan will not end poverty. He makes no argument that it would even have a substantial impact. Therefore the proposition fails. 11. Proponent grants that his plan will not end poverty. He makes no argument that it would even have a substantial impact. Therefore the proposition fails.