What would a "poverty czar" accomplish?

:shrug:

We know what causes poverty: It's a lack of education, a lack of opportunity, a lack of a safety net, a culture of broken families, a culture where it's easy to make bad choices and hard to make good ones... and these things weave in and out of each other, feed into each other, and are passed on through the generations.

It seems like we've already got a number of cabinet positions concerned with poverty, so why not just empower those positions to break the cycle and pull people out of the shacks and ghettos?

We've got the department of commerce, department of justice, department of labor, department of education, department of health and human services, the office of drug control policy, and the department of housing and urban development, in addition to all the other cabinet offices that play a lesser role.

So again, why should we create a new cabinet-level position instead of making the old positions more effective? :shrug:

Nothing more. It's purely a political move to keep Edwards from giving the Obama campaign anything to crow about, and hopefully stop him from endorsing the next president, Barack Obama. Beyond that, a "Poverty Czar" would do nothing to help average citizens. It's just another vile, cynical plow by the Clinton camp.

.

perhaps they forgot to cut somebody's access to social services

more culling might be wanted

When exactly DID America get "Czars?"

and propose, measure, manage various programs designed to stem poverty.

I think it's a good idea except I don't like the term "poverty czar" at ALL.

but I also think that they're good as seperate entities.

So we don't storm the bastille.


Every decade the other polarized half of America thinks its being pandered, pampered and satisfied. Centuries may go by and we will all still remain in ignorance, bondage and despair (but despair subsides when our food and circus entertains).

It would seem quite reasonable to expect that a President with good common
sense and the ability to lead should be able to make great progress.
We certainly don't need no more vanity plate "Czars" in our government.

can create an illusion of progress and feel good about themselves, right?

It's an emperor in fact. It seems highly inappropriate for someone to be called a Poverty Czar.
Would we have a Poverty King? Queen of Poor? Duke of Destitution? Earl of Earning Less ???

You put the Poverty Czar in charge of "poverty," then the other department heads (Education, HHS, Justice) might be inclined to think that the need to eradicate social and economic injustice doesn't have to fundamentally inform their decision making. After all, that's the Poverty Guy's job, right?

Given how much the FED is hurting Americans with it's inflationary policies, the FED should be abolished.

All the "drug czar" did was get more people locked up than ever before. And she wants a Poverty Czar?? No thank you. :scared:

drug czar, the war czar, the energy czar, the food czar and the health care czar.:silly:

It's my humble opinion the Federal "war on poverty" was specifically designed to INCREASE poverty.

If they really wanted to do something about it they would stop meddling with the tax laws that dictate everyone's economic behavior, set up FAIR trade agreements. they would stop sucking so much power and money from state and locals and just be available as a resource if needed instead. There would be LESS federal programs, not more. States and communities have more than enough talent to solve their own problems when they are free to do so without federal laws fucking them over every time they try.

For example, why not identify the 1000 poorest communities in the US and build each one a good library, a good school system, a health clinic, and a good childcare system and see how that works? Or pick the 200 poorest counties and get a county-wide network of services?

There're basic building blocks that just aren't there in SO MANY communities...

Kucinich.

I, for one, don't trust a "legacy society" of engineered, teethy smiles.

There are so many who don't have a shelter from violence and in the exigency of their daily lives are thwarted in their caring and creativity...just in keeping the ones they love safe. It's everywhere, not just Iraq (blowing-up the bridge between generations); it's everywhere there is uncertainty and the corresponding anxiety that preempts long-term planning. I think it must be deliberate and engineered because accommodation is a kindness that a lot of people are born with. When the forgiveness is gone and the in-elasticity of purpose prevails, then the focus is contrived in legacy classrooms by youngsters learning the ropes and doing tricks (is that sophistry?).

It's like Frankenstien...trying to create the bigness of life out of minuscule body parts. You end-up with a monster unrepresentative of the whole...a deadly caricature.

Everything is of a whole.

There are millions of permutations of this problem and stealth genocide might slice and dice down to academic bite-size...for those experts at caging data...but, the inauthenticity means it will never cohere around consensus.

Am I the only one that gets sick of these Czars in our democratic republic?

Drug Czar.
War Czar.
Poverty Czar.

Give it a rest. These poistions are lame and accomplish nothing.

:thumbsup:

by REZCo, Inc.

:shrug:

Good enough reason for me.

from: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Tsar_-_Etymology_and_spelling/id/2046045

The word tsar is derived from the Latin title Caesar by way of the Old Slavonic tsesar (цесарь). The word is cognate with German Kaiser, Gothic káisar, Dutch keizer, Danish kejser, Swedish kejsare, and Norwegian keiser.

The reds against the whites! Except the reds are the whites! Actually, that's beginning to sound too much like how it is... :(

Long may he rule us
Strong and majestic
For our glory rule

Dread to his enemies
The poors' kind defender
God save the Czar
God save the Czar

:thumbsup: But that's not what "causes" poverty imo, it's Adam Smith's 'nvisible hand' that determines who & what systems bestow upon the hapless just what they will require to be sated i.e. access to high-speed broadband, clean Levi's, a little bit of gss, a pizza & pitcher of beer once in the while maybe a salad bar full of fresh veggies come on!!

It was put forth in a diatribe once heard it on the radio years back so you just know it was true ;)), that all democracy really requires is $8.75/hr to establish the semblance of democracy...and sustain itself :woohoo:

Too much more and the oligarch's begin to chafe for lack of profits. Too much less and rebellion to the status quo lends too much unscripted caos...and we cannot simply have too much 'unscripted' chaos...and that will *ever* do

First an aside: you missed a few things that contribute to poverty. The lack of income mobility (poor families tend to stay poor through generations), income inequality and more significantly wealth inequality (or asset poverty), the culture of worker exploitation, our taxation system, our federal and state spending priorities, etc.

Basically the only reason you need a cabinet level position for poverty is if you are going to have a genuine program that requires oversight and coordination with direct access to the President. For example...

If Barack Obama would implement the twelve steps recommended in the Center for American Progress' From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Proposal to Cut Poverty in Half
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_report.html

Then appointing a cabinet level department and chair to oversee the direction of a sweeping policy initiative would make sense.

Incidentally, I don't have the figures here (I have them back at my other job) but the Urban Institute did a qualitative research simulation using the TRIM3 model to simulate the effects and costs of implementing these proposals. The combined total of raising the minimum wage, expanding EITC, CTC, and CDTC costs the government under 100 billion and and alone drops poverty by something like 30%. That doesn't include numerous other proposals that are not as easy to simulate.

Helps deflect attention. If things get really bad the president can fire and replace them. Works well for political purposes.