I didn't say give them more money...I said "more economic incentives", meaning tax breaks, liens, excellent returns on their investments, the ability to cut through excessive, bureaucratic red tape and expedite results, etc. Notice, I didn't say "the rich", I said "business owners and wealthier members". Business owners can very often be working, or middle class, people, however they can directly impact economic change by hiring those in need. The wealthier members of this experiment in Canada were willing to help out, and as said in the article there were also incentives for them to partake. But, given the state of affairs in America, do you think that would really work? I am merely taking a pragmatic approach, that of a social entrepreneur.
Money is money. Whether it comes from the government or the private sector, much of it is earned with ill-gotten gains. Market demand controls medicine and health care, gun control, prisons and the criminal justice system, among other things in the U.S. Don't tell me that corrupt government officials (of which the U.S. still has plenty) should take less money from WEALTHIER (by that I don't mean the 1%, as you were suggesting) private actors that will gain from helping the most neglected demographic of our society. God forbid wealthier people (again, not the Illuminati...I'm talking American, suburbanite, upper-middle class, borgeous folk) that invest in helping society should benefit from it, huh?
Given the socio-economic and political climate in America right now, I don't think that the Canadian program would work in the US without more incentives. Perhaps, they don't necessarily have to be economic, though. That's where planners and policy makers need to get creative.
Interestingly enough, I'm working on a white paper/proposal that deals with this very issue. Eliminating poverty through innovative and modern-day means (like the networking in Canada). However, I personally believe technology needs to be implemented more often and effectively. It requires a lot of innovation to get America to the level of our first-world peers in sociological terms, and there is no easy answer, either way, as to how to pick up the pieces.
No, I do not support the rich getting richer unless they are using a good sum of money to give back to society efficiently and often. Of course, by earning their money through legal, hard working means, not "funneling". I oppose the funneling and apparent upper-class agenda to systematically swindle people in recent years.
By the way, I've been on Welfare and Medicaid, and had to go to the Newark, NJ Essex County welfare department. Believe me, I know how demeaning it can be to be poor in America. At this point, if wealthy people make more socially conscious purchases an investments, it can only help. Unless you want to grab the pitchforks and start a revolution....
