A debate on a plan

Proponent started out proposing a debate on his "plan to eliminate poverty." Now at the end of the debate he claims "The debate is about whether the proposition is good or not, not about whether it will totally end poverty (that would be pointless). As Con you must show it will not significantly reduce it." Using Proponent's logic one could propose a plan to eliminate poverty that offered giving free haircuts to poor people. That would help them get better jobs, you see. That would meet Proponent's criteria of "being good." Moreover, according to Proponent, the whole burden of proof that it would be ineffective shifts to the opposition. Since there has not been much study on that mechanism, he would then declare himself the winner. When a plan is offered under the banner of "eliminating poverty," the burden of proof falls upon the Proponent to prove it is effective. We don't demand proof of 100% elimination of poverty, but something substantial, perhaps eliminating 40% of poverty. Proponent should also argue what it would cost, so we could evaluate it against other plans. What Proponent has settled for is saying that what he plans are "good things." Even at that level, one is good, one is bad, and one does about nothing. Vouchers I like the concept of vouchers and I think they would improve the educational system at no increase in cost. However, I don't think they would have a significant effect on eliminating poverty. The primary driving force in eliminating poverty is a prosperous economy. A prosperous economy creates jobs at all levels. In India they had a vast oversupply of college graduates, who, thanks to democratic socialism could not find meaningful employment. In the United States, there has significant shortage of unskilled labor, a shortage that has been met by roughly 15 million illegal immigrants. In a prosperous economy, there are many opportunities. The question is why those opportunities are not seized. Education helps, but it is an incremental improvement for poor people, not a fundamental one. Proponent's data suggested vouchers might make an improvement was at the 5-7% level, at most, and I think that is reasonable. A counter-example I gave was that of penniless immigrants from Castro's Cuba and from Southeast Asia who succeeded despite language barriers and discrimination using the present educational system. Proponent doubts the success, but offers no data in contradiction. In "Case Studies in Diversity: Refugees in America in the 1990s," D. W. Haines (ed.), Joseph Coleman writes: "The data also support the more general notion, common in both the popular media and the academic literature, of Cubans as a success story ... this ... reflects the confidence the Cubans have in themselves as a successful and cultured people." (p. 27) The story of Asian immigrants is well known, "Asian immigrants to the US, many of whom arrived practically penniless and took low-paying jobs with little prospect for advancement, have become among the wealthiest, best-educated people in the country. ... ferociously hard-working high achievers who succeed in education" Financial Times 2007 http://www.awib.org... The educational system of the US would be marginally improved by vouchers, but the economic and educational opportunities as they now exist serve perfectly well for those who are driven by their culture to succeed. Section 8 Housing Proponent claimed "As of now, we build "projects" in the inner city. If we built Section 8 only in the suburbs, and in spread out areas, we wouldn't get ghettos." and "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." Those assertions were shown to be completely false. Section 8 is a voucher program that let's people live anywhere they choose. Proponent then states "As I said, landlords choose if they will allow Section 8 subsidies, and most choose not to, because real estate value goes down if they do." This is false and Proponent offers no evidence that it is true. It makes little sense, because it supposes that landlords care more about preserving property values in the neighborhood than about renting out a house that would otherwise stay empty, thereby costing the landlord considerable loss of revenue. Proponent is supporting a massively expensive socialist program of buying housing and renting it out, when it is completely unnecessary. There is no shortage of Section 8 housing. Moreover, government housing programs fail uniformly because the government bureaucracy has little interest in looking after the property and improving it. Bureaucracy benefits by expanding the bureaucracy. This means that money that could go to aiding poor people goes instead to government bureaucrats whose interest is in expanding their bureaucracy. The money drain from the taxpayers leaves less for private enterprise, and ultimately puts more people into poverty than it helps. Providing Cars The statistic that 75% of poor people have cars comes from the U.S. Census Bureau. Proponent says it is skewed and therefore it is false. His grounds for saying it is false is nothing more than that it doesn't agree with his theory. He offers no contrary data at all, let alone data from a source more reliable than the Census Bureau. What he offers is a limited claim from a section of Los Angeles that some poor people would have better access to jobs if they had cars. Los Angeles is noted for its poor public transportation system. It may well be true that in that particular section of Los Angeles, the local government would do well to provide some sort of support to car ownership, but the argument that on a nationwide basis there would be any significant impact is unsupported. 75% have cars, and many of the rest are either disabled, better served by public transport, or not motivated to find a job even if they had a car. Summary Proponent offers a plan to eliminate poverty. The voucher aspect has the most promise, and might work, optimistically, at the 5-7% level. Building large amounts of public housing in the suburbs is a socialist boondoggle that would ultimately increase rather than decrease poverty by foolish wasting resources. Providing cars treats so few poor people it would have a negligible impact. People move into and out of poverty in one to two generations. None of Proponents plans work to prevent people from entering into poverty, therefore it is not going to seriously affect the total poverty rates. The principle causes of poverty are (1) misfortune from accident, mental illness, disease, or other tragic circumstances; (2) limited total economic prosperity and the economic ups and downs in a locality; (3) social problems such as drugs, alcoholism, and criminal lifestyles; and (4) lack of motivation due to cultural patterns that do not emphasize hard work, value education, or honor success. The dominant problems are all very difficult to solve, and Proponent does not address any of them. His plan will not have any significant impact on poverty. The proposition should be defeated.