• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Food-stamp use doubles

WWGWD said:
I don't think it's a disdain for the poor that causes them to continually loose national elections. It's a total and complete lack of understanding as to what causes someone to be poor, and the challenges that face anyone trying to get out of poverty. The impression I have always gotten from people born into wealth, is that think anyone is not wealthy, doesn't work hard enough and is lazy. It's truly a sad commentary on the disconnect between the socio economics status in this country.
Click to expand...


Those who are born into wealth tend to be progressive and call themselves Democrats. Conservatives are usually the newly wealthy and fell they earned it given the roadblocks and other deterrents that the Old Wealth (the Progressive Democrats) have put in placed to avoid newly rich people from making it. Now the Conservatives may be self driven and may not understand why others are not. Having a welfare system is the way the Old Wealth keeps the impoverished from rioting and as a means of a base of power against the New Wealth and uses the New Wealth as a scapegoat to blame for the policies and outcomes of the Old Wealth. Also, Old Wealth doesn't have the same drive as the New Wealth so they would not think it odd that someone would not necessarily have the means to get out of poverty so again Old Wealth would lean progressive and be more likely become Democrat.
 
Shadow Serious said:
Those who are born into wealth tend to be progressive and call themselves Democrats. Conservatives are usually the newly wealthy and fell they earned it given the roadblocks and other deterrents that the Old Wealth (the Progressive Democrats) have put in placed to avoid newly rich people from making it. Now the Conservatives may be self driven and may not understand why others are not. Having a welfare system is the way the Old Wealth keeps the impoverished from rioting and as a means of a base of power against the New Wealth and uses the New Wealth as a scapegoat to blame for the policies and outcomes of the Old Wealth. Also, Old Wealth doesn't have the same drive as the New Wealth so they would not think it odd that someone would not necessarily have the means to get out of poverty so again Old Wealth would lean progressive and be more likely become Democrat.
Click to expand...

Warren buffet wasn't born rich.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Is a policy a failure if it keeps you in political power and is "paid for" with money borrowed in the names of others? Income redistribution is perfect (politically) since you use other people's money to buy your votes. As long as enough morons believe that they can get "free" stuff by forcing others to pay their "fair share" then this is unstopable.
Click to expand...

But here's the thing.

It's also considered income redistribution to limit corporate executive pay so that corporations will have higher cash reserves that they can use either to purchase better equipment, hire more employees, or pay current employees higher wages. And all of those would make more jobs available for people to get hired to so they don't have to be on welfare.
 
captainawesome said:
Warren buffet wasn't born rich.
Click to expand...

People at the level of Warren Buffet tend to be king makers and use their position as influence. He does believe that people should be working per Wikipedia.

Warren Buffett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following quotation from 1988 highlights Warren Buffett's thoughts on his wealth and why he long planned to re-allocate it:
I don't have a problem with guilt about money. The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It's like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GDP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing. I don't do that though. I don't use very many of those claim checks. There's nothing material I want very much. And I'm going to give virtually all of those claim checks to charity when my wife and I die. (Lowe 1997:165–166)
​
Click to expand...

He has his own views about money and fairness but is the views of just one man I was giving a general principal from the point of views of why newly wealth people might not understand the reasoning that those on welfare do not strive to get out of it strongly.
 
samsmart said:
But here's the thing.

It's also considered income redistribution to limit corporate executive pay so that corporations will have higher cash reserves that they can use either to purchase better equipment, hire more employees, or pay current employees higher wages. And all of those would make more jobs available for people to get hired to so they don't have to be on welfare.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Take the Walmart CEO annual pay of about $18,000,000, and divide it among the 2,000,000 other Walmart employees and each would get a whopping extra $9/year.

On average a large US corp. CEO makes about what 400 of his "typical" employees make.

Fortune 500 2012 - CEO pay vs. our salaries - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com
 
j-mac said:
What a failure progressive policy is....
Click to expand...

How is this a failure of progressive policy? The market clearly doesn't provide enough people with the means to feed themselves, so the government steps in to ensure people are making ends meet and aren't starving in the street, having to choose between paying the rent/electricity/phone bill and having enough sustenance.

Honestly, how is this anything but an example of the benevolence of a government that will step in when people would otherwise suffer needlessly?
 
babilfish said:
How is this a failure of progressive policy? The market clearly doesn't provide enough people with the means to feed themselves, so the government steps in to ensure people are making ends meet and aren't starving in the street, having to choose between paying the rent/electricity/phone bill and having enough sustenance.

Honestly, how is this anything but an example of the benevolence of a government that will step in when people would otherwise suffer needlessly?
Click to expand...

If one cannot provide for the most basic of needs for his/her self, yes, that is a failure, and the government supports that failure by providing it for him/her...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
If one cannot provide for the most basic of needs for his/her self, yes, that is a failure
Click to expand...

Unless despite all of their hardwork and discipline, there just aren't enough jobs to go around.

Then it's bad luck.

and the government supports that failure by providing it for him/her...
Click to expand...

...

Yes, I see your point. If someone falls on hard times, the best option we have as a society is to simply let them die in the streets.

That isn't a viewpoint only the most misanthropic or a sociopath individuals would support.
 
babilfish said:
How is this a failure of progressive policy? The market clearly doesn't provide enough people with the means to feed themselves, so the government steps in to ensure people are making ends meet and aren't starving in the street, having to choose between paying the rent/electricity/phone bill and having enough sustenance.

Honestly, how is this anything but an example of the benevolence of a government that will step in when people would otherwise suffer needlessly?
Click to expand...

lol, Government causes a problem and blames the market to get a program (power) that exacerbates the problem to further justify growing the program...

Much like their involvement in healthcare, lets make it so costly everyone will demand universal healthcare while blaming the market!
 
babilfish said:
How is this a failure of progressive policy? The market clearly doesn't provide enough people with the means to feed themselves, so the government steps in to ensure people are making ends meet and aren't starving in the street, having to choose between paying the rent/electricity/phone bill and having enough sustenance.

Honestly, how is this anything but an example of the benevolence of a government that will step in when people would otherwise suffer needlessly?
Click to expand...

My God...did you really just use the words "benevolence of a government"?
 
Lachean said:
lol, Government causes a problem and blames the market to get a power that exacerbates the problem to further justify growing the program...

Much like their involvement in healthcare, lets make it so costly everyone will demand universal healthcare while blaming the market!
Click to expand...


Damn! You're on to Obama's sinister gambit!
 
babilfish said:
Unless despite all of their hardwork and discipline, there just aren't enough jobs to go around.

Then it's bad luck.



...

Yes, I see your point. If someone falls on hard times, the best option we have as a society is to simply let them die in the streets.

That isn't a viewpoint only the most misanthropic or a sociopath individuals would support.
Click to expand...

There are always jobs available. It's a question of someone willing to take them and do the work. If you're basic needs are being met and you're content, why work?
 
babilfish said:
You can't be serious.

No, you have to be joking. I can't believe you just said that.
Click to expand...

I have a house that needs to be cleaned and a yard that needs to be cut. We cannot find dependable people to do either, and we pay very well, so we are currently utilizing commercial firms when we'd prefer to hire unemployed individuals. If someone wants to work, they will find a job...
 
Lachean said:
They've been playing the "Road to Nationalization" game long before Obama.
Click to expand...

Them, the Lizardmen, the Greys, and the Secret Jewesh Cabal I'm sure.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I have a house that needs to be cleaned and a yard that needs to be cut. We cannot find dependable people to do either, and we pay very well, so we are currently utilizing commercial firms when we'd prefer to hire unemployed individuals. If someone wants to work, they will find a job...
Click to expand...

How fluent are you in Spanish?
 
Henrin said:
You don't feel there is anything wrong with it?
Click to expand...

I would term offering food to someone on a stretch of bad luck so that they don't starve benevolence.

And since it is government that is doing this act I don't really see anything wrong with it, no.
 
babilfish said:
I would term offering food to someone on a stretch of bad luck so that they don't starve benevolence.

And since it is government that is doing this act I don't really see anything wrong with it, no.
Click to expand...

That's why we have charities, but they won't help anyone forever...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom