• 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!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

j-mac said:
And tell who fills the void left in the world when we pull out of the leadership role in the world? And you think other more nefarious enemies will just leave us alone?

I think yours is a very naive view.
Click to expand...

Why would they want to harm us if we are promoting the general welfare of the United States? From one perspective and in that alternative, our warfare-State merely enriches those with enough wealth to invest in a warfare-State instead of a welfare-State, on a for profit basis. From another perspective and in that alternative, only a warfare-State needs "enemies of the State" in order to perpetuate itself. And, not only that,

but our federal Congress still cannot justify wartime tax rates for their resorting to wartime powers, to the People in their office of public trust, as the electorate of the United States.
 
Last edited:
danielpalos said:
It has to do with Faith and morals regarding bearing True witness instead of False witness to our own laws.
Click to expand...
You're obviously not talking to me.

Continue your one-sided discussion then.
 
danielpalos said:
Because you Only have fallacies for your Cause.
Click to expand...
You don't have a clue what I have for my cause, let alone what that cause is, or whether it exists at all.

And you're capitalizing random words for some reason. Why?
 
The Mark said:
You don't have a clue what I have for my cause, let alone what that cause is, or whether it exists at all.

And you're capitalizing random words for some reason. Why?
Click to expand...

Does it really matter since you seem to Only have fallacies for any Cause you may have, and want to support with a good argument, instead.

Why do you believe solving simple poverty would not be a promotion of the general welfare?
 
danielpalos said:
Does it really matter since you seem to Only have fallacies for any Cause you may have, and want to support with a good argument, instead.
Click to expand...
I haven't presented any cause or evidence, so how the hell can you know whether the cause is faulty and the evidence is fallacious?

danielpalos said:
Why do you believe solving simple poverty would not be a promotion of the general welfare?
Click to expand...
What is "simple poverty"? And why is it simple? Compared to what?
 
The Mark said:
I haven't presented any cause or evidence, so how the hell can you know whether the cause is faulty and the evidence is fallacious?

What is "simple poverty"? And why is it simple? Compared to what?
Click to expand...

Let's just assume that simple poverty can be solved in a market friendly manner, for now. Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation?
 
danielpalos said:
Let's just assume that simple poverty
Click to expand...
Undefined Term.

can be solved in a market friendly manner, for now.
Click to expand...
Undefined Term…no context to know what you consider to be market friendly.

Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation?
Click to expand...
False dichotomy, claiming what th e other person believes, and making an assertion of fact about a debateable concept.
 
pinqy said:
Undefined Term.

Undefined Term…no context to know what you consider to be market friendly.

False dichotomy, claiming what th e other person believes, and making an assertion of fact about a debateable concept.
Click to expand...

We can define it later. We can assume, for now, that simple poverty can be solved in a market friendly manner. No. You don't need to know the terms to assume full employment of resources in the market for labor. The theory of demand and supply makes that assumption for you.

Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation?
 
danielpalos said:
We can define it later.
Click to expand...
Not if we want a rational discussion, we can't. Though based on you previous posts and refusal to be clear, I'm not convinced you want rational discussion.

We can assume, for now, that simple poverty can be solved in a market friendly manner.
Click to expand...
I can't assume that when I don't know what you mean by simple poverty or what you would consider market friendly.

No. You don't need to know th e terms to assume full employment of resources in the market for labor.
Click to expand...
True, but I need to know the terms to know what the connection between "full employment of resources" (which needs to be defined itself) and simple poverty is.

The theory of demand and supply makes that assumption for you.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.

Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation?
Click to expand...
Since I don't know what you mean by simple poverty, so I have no idea what could be involved in solving it. And since I don't know what you consider to be the "war on poverty," I can't say which is better.
 
pinqy said:
Not if we want a rational discussion, we can't. Though based on you previous posts and refusal to be clear, I'm not convinced you want rational discussion.

I can't assume that when I don't know what you mean by simple poverty or what you would consider market friendly.

True, but I need to know the terms to know what the connection between "full employment of resources" (which needs to be defined itself) and simple poverty is.

No it doesn't.

Since I don't know what you mean by simple poverty, so I have no idea what could be involved in solving it. And since I don't know what you consider to be the "war on poverty," I can't say which is better.
Click to expand...

Why would it matter if we merely assume it for now and define it later?

Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation?
 
danielpalos said:
Why would it matter if we merely assume it for now and define it later?
Click to expand...
How can one assume something to be true if you don't know what it is? And why can't you, or rather, REFUSE TO, define your terms?

Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation?
Click to expand...
I don't know if I believe that or not.
 
Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty, hypothetically, would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation.
pinqy said:
I don't know if I believe that or not.
Click to expand...
Why not?

Let's even assume that solving simple poverty entails ensuring full employment of resources in the market for labor.

Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty, hypothetically, would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation.
 
danielpalos said:
Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty, hypothetically, would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation.

Why not?
Click to expand...
Because, for the fourth time now, nobody knows what you mean by simple poverty, nor what you consider to be the war on poverty.

How can one say if X is better or worse than Y without knowing what X or Y are?
 
There is no simple poverty in this country. Simple poverty was solved long, long ago.
 
pinqy said:
Because, for the fourth time now, nobody knows what you mean by simple poverty, nor what you consider to be the war on poverty.

How can one say if X is better or worse than Y without knowing what X or Y are?
Click to expand...

Let's assume we can end our War on Poverty by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner and lower our Tax burden as a result.
 
Taylor said:
There is no simple poverty in this country. Simple poverty was solved long, long ago.
Click to expand...

You may need to read up on issue. Only absolute poverty has been solved for, mostly, due to Socialism bailing out Capitalism like usual. So, we are usually referring to relative poverty when discussing poverty in the US.
 
danielpalos said:
You may need to read up on issue. Only absolute poverty has been solved for, mostly, due to Socialism bailing out Capitalism like usual. So, we are usually referring to relative poverty when discussing poverty in the US.
Click to expand...
I was talking about simple poverty, which again has not been an issue for some time.
 
Taylor said:
I was talking about simple poverty, which again has not been an issue for some time.
Click to expand...

Absolute poverty may be simple, but only in Third World economies, not First World economies where mostly, Only relative poverty exists. Solving simple poverty in more developed economies usually involves simplification of public policies and upgrades in infrastructure.
 
danielpalos said:
Solving simple poverty in more developed economies usually involves simplification of public policies and upgrades in infrastructure.
Click to expand...
If by "simplification of public policies" you mean reducing or eliminating much of the regulatory perplexity that exists in this country, then carry on.
 
Cool. I believe our elected representatives to government should not have to be burdened with anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.
 
danielpalos said:
Let's assume we can end our War on Poverty by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner and lower our Tax burden as a result.
Click to expand...

Why are you refusing to define your terms? First you haven't established that there is a war on poverty, then, we can't say if simple poverty can or should be solved without knowing what you mean, we can't know if if a market friendly is workable without knowing what is market friendly, etc

Really, we could have moved past this if you would even half try to be half reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom