• 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!

Elimination of Poverty, the Re-establishment of the Middle Class

How To Eliminate Poverty, Re-establish the Middle-Class? Check all you agree with

  • Government funded higher education just as other industrialized nations do

    Votes: 28 68.3%

  • Cut out tax loopholes for the rich to benefit the lower and middle class

    Votes: 34 82.9%

  • Start disallowing outsourcing to other countries for lower wages

    Votes: 28 68.3%

  • Institute a flat tax

    Votes: 7 17.1%

  • Disallow those in poverty to have children

    Votes: 2 4.9%

  • This is not possible; we will always have poverty and no middle class

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • There should always be poverty

    Votes: 6 14.6%
  • Total voters
    41
phattonez said:
Poverty is relative. A poor man here would be comparatively super rich in Africa. We do not use a good definition of poverty in this country as it is subjective, not definitive.
Click to expand...

99% POVERTY 1 % RICH GUARENTEED.

Your words right?

There's two things I find a bit strange.
1. That China a "communist country" loaned America a capatalist country 93 million dollars.?
2. That you know the precentages of poverty and rich in Communist countries "Guarenteed" but not in your own country?

Is this because you don't know what poverty is or do you only study the economics of communist countries?:peace
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
I forgot why I had you on ignore, and you just reminded me. You totally ignore arguments.
Click to expand...

Running away is always an option when someone posts facts that disagree with your personal opinion. :sun
 
UtahBill said:
shipping them out? never heard that....got a link? or did you just make it up. truth is, the rich often ship their funds out of the country to avoid paying taxes. They also register thier companies "offshore" to avoid taxes.
Click to expand...

of course they do. we make it worth spending lots and lots of money to do so.
 
There should always be poverty... if someone chooses to be lazy, do drugs and do nothing with their life.... they should be allowed to be poor. What you gonna do? force them to be wealthy?
 
phattonez said:
Poverty is relative. A poor man here would be comparatively super rich in Africa. We do not use a good definition of poverty in this country as it is subjective, not definitive.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that other countries define the word poverty in an objective manner?
 
TurtleDude said:
those are some strange answer choices

no middle class?

maybe there will always be poverty rather than there should be
Click to expand...

You are right about that. There will likely always be povery. But we can either feed it or help make it better. We are not compeltely powerless.
 
Mason66 said:
That was not one of the choices

The choise was "There SHOULD always be poverty.
Click to expand...

You are right, I used short hand, i.e. I substituted "there will always be poverty" for the actual question which was "This is not possible; we will always have poverty and no middle class"

Mason66 said:
Nobody is going to say they think there should be poverty but it will be there, because it is relevent.
Click to expand...

Oh and just so you know, the post you quoted me on was explaining how I messed up by not putting in the option: "This is not possible we will always have poverty" in addition to the option: "This is not possible; we will always have poverty and no middle class"

Mason66 said:
Just for the record, what is your definition of poverty?
Click to expand...

What is yours? I like to go by the State chosen definitions which are usually based on ratios of income to the lowest level of income needed to live ... do you think this is not an acceptable standard? Do you think it should be lower or higher? Just how much hardship does one have to go through to be considered living in poverty?

Also another thing .. as I have been reading these posts, I am amazed by how incredibly greedy people are. Are the wealthy really that inconvenienced by having to pay a small handful of taxes so that others can survive? Especially considering most people amassed their wealth in a system void of equal opportunity? Is it just me or does this sound incredibly whinny on the wealthy's part? Oh, poor me, I'm incredibly rich and still will be after taxes, but I don't want to share my money with those in need because I worked to get were I am and they didn't, they're all just lazy slobs, stealing my money .... seriously guys? Do you know how you sound? How pathetic!

Believing myths like equal opportunity really exists, the poor are only poor because they are lazy and lack morals and thus the poor do not deserve to survive ... believing such myths likely serve to ease the wealthy's consciences (if they have them, lol!) in hoarding a huge portion of the world's wealth.

It has actually been shown (in psychological studies) that people act more aggressively and hurtful to those who they demonize or dehumanize than those whom they do not. I think this is exactly what is going on with the wealthy's belittling of the poor .. truly pathetic
 
Councilman said:
Start by changing the Welfare trap that was designed to keep people in poverty while telling them it was to help them.

They made it easier to get if the Dad moved out and penalized people the minute they got the weakest job or income.

So the best thing to do is not listed.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. In my state the poor are actually encouraged to stay on welfare and not rewarded for coming off of it (opposite of what it should be) due to abrupt welfare cut-off's based on income level. This makes it so that they have medical insurance, food stamps etc. one year and if they make a few extra bucks the next, they loose their benefits, thus making it so they can't pay bills such as medical bills. Whoever thought up that system was either trying to keep the poor on the system or completely lacking intelligence. jmo
 
MusicAdventurer said:
I couldn't agree with you more. In my state the poor are actually encouraged to stay on welfare and not rewarded for coming off of it (opposite of what it should be) due to abrupt welfare cut-off's based on income level. This makes it so that they have medical insurance, food stamps etc. one year and if they make a few extra bucks the next, they loose their benefits, thus making it so they can't pay bills such as medical bills. Whoever thought up that system was either trying to keep the poor on the system or completely lacking intelligence. jmo
Click to expand...

A living wage for full-time work would seem to me to be a much better option to welfare. But that's just me............ :sun
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Not exactly .. in fact .. far from it :)
Click to expand...

Well, there you go again. Equal opportunity exists. Equal results does not. Thank goodness!! Anyone with a sound mind and body can make it in America. It takes utilizing virtues and not vices. It takes hard work, getting educated (not necessarily a degree), self-discipline, personal responsibility, tenacity, frugality, and the rest. That does not mean everyone becomes "wealthy." Making it should be simply being self-sufficient.
 
Catawba said:
A living wage for full-time work would seem to me to be a much better option to welfare. But that's just me............ :sun
Click to expand...

I agree! I think people having employment for an income that they have agreed to work for is far better than welfare. Wow! Catawba and I have one agreement now. Is there a second? :)
 
LesGovt said:
I agree! I think people having employment for an income that they have agreed to work for is far better than welfare. Wow! Catawba and I have one agreement now. Is there a second? :)
Click to expand...

Glad you agree on a minimum living wage for full-time work! Because if you can't live on it, you are back on welfare. :sun
 
Catawba said:
Glad you agree on a minimum living wage for full-time work! Because if you can't live on it, you are back on welfare. :sun
Click to expand...

Absolutely!! I think a true minimum living wage should be $150 an hour, please benefits, of course.

Hey Catawba, did you hear what our wonderful President accomplished with his new buddies, the automobile manufacturers, yesterday? I am going to have to nurse my big car for quite some time, because I don't want to drive the matchbox car that will be available in 2025.
 
LesGovt said:
Absolutely!! I think a true minimum living wage should be $150 an hour, please benefits, of course.
Click to expand...

So this is what the rich believe is a living wage eh? Pitiful, just pitiful! :sun
 
LesGovt said:
Absolutely!! I think a true minimum living wage should be $150 an hour, please benefits, of course.

Hey Catawba, did you hear what our wonderful President accomplished with his new buddies, the automobile manufacturers, yesterday? I am going to have to nurse my big car for quite some time, because I don't want to drive the matchbox car that will be available in 2025.
Click to expand...


Thnxs alot now my 'puter is dripping crap.
 
LesGovt said:
Well, there you go again. Equal opportunity exists. Equal results does not. Thank goodness!! Anyone with a sound mind and body can make it in America. It takes utilizing virtues and not vices. It takes hard work, getting educated (not necessarily a degree), self-discipline, personal responsibility, tenacity, frugality, and the rest. That does not mean everyone becomes "wealthy." Making it should be simply being self-sufficient.
Click to expand...

Equal opportunity doesn't exist anywhere because it is contingent upon people having the same opportunity to succeed. And they don't. Especially not here. In fact, moving up the economic latter is easier in certain European countries.

Who has a better chance at success: the son of a lawyer or the son of a under employed construction worker?
 
evanescence said:
Equal opportunity doesn't exist anywhere because it is contingent upon people having the same opportunity to succeed. And they don't. Especially not here. In fact, moving up the economic latter is easier in certain European countries.

Who has a better chance at success: the son of a lawyer or the son of a under employed construction worker?
Click to expand...

Both have equal opportunity to succeed. Your example would mean that you believe in equal results first so that your version of equal opportunity would exist. This is not how anyone ever believed equal opportunity existed. This is only the liberal, progressive distorted view of things.
 
Catawba said:
So this is what the rich believe is a living wage eh? Pitiful, just pitiful! :sun
Click to expand...

$300 an hour would be better, wouldn't it?
 
LesGovt said:
Both have equal opportunity to succeed. Your example would mean that you believe in equal results first so that your version of equal opportunity would exist. This is not how anyone ever believed equal opportunity existed. This is only the liberal, progressive distorted view of things.
Click to expand...

Right-so what is your definition of equal opportunity? because mine is that people have an equal chance to move up the "food chain." It doesn't entail complete equality, because that, too, is impossible.
 
evanescence said:
Equal opportunity doesn't exist anywhere because it is contingent upon people having the same opportunity to succeed. And they don't. Especially not here. In fact, moving up the economic latter is easier in certain European countries.

Who has a better chance at success: the son of a lawyer or the son of a under employed construction worker?
Click to expand...
True, BUT.....
How about if the lawyer kicks his kids to the curb as soon as they turn 18? and the construction worker saves and encourages his kids to go to college?
In my family, we were all equally treated, once we turned 18 we were told to get out.
Long term for us, 2 have done well and retired well, 1 is OK, 2 are very poor. Same parents, same schools....
Ability and ambition are the major factors.
Success has different levels..different interpretations.
The level of success that SHOULD be a minimum standard is that of being more of contributor to society than a drain on society.
 
evanescence said:
Right-so what is your definition of equal opportunity? because mine is that people have an equal chance to move up the "food chain." It doesn't entail complete equality, because that, too, is impossible.
Click to expand...

Equal opportunity means that a person can succeed if they put forth the effort and follow a path of virtues and not vices. It doesn't mean everyone will succeed, but only that they have the opportunity to do so. There are plenty of stories of people who have succeeded in spite of their immediate environment.
 
UtahBill said:
True, BUT.....
How about if the lawyer kicks his kids to the curb as soon as they turn 18? and the construction worker saves and encourages his kids to go to college?
In my family, we were all equally treated, once we turned 18 we were told to get out.
Long term for us, 2 have done well and retired well, 1 is OK, 2 are very poor. Same parents, same schools....
Ability and ambition are the major factors.
Success has different levels..different interpretations.
The level of success that SHOULD be a minimum standard is that of being more of contributor to society than a drain on society.
Click to expand...

Success is due to a combination of ability, drive to succeed, and luck. Some can make it with almost nothing, some have everything handed to them and still can't make it. But on average, the position one is born into in this society plays a larger role. If someone grows up in a family that doesn't teach responsibility, that person isn't likely to succeed regardless of other factors.

LesGovt said:
Equal opportunity means that a person can succeed if they put forth the effort and follow a path of virtues and not vices. It doesn't mean everyone will succeed, but only that they have the opportunity to do so. There are plenty of stories of people who have succeeded in spite of their immediate environment.
Click to expand...

Sure there are, but if one generalizes, their placement on the food chain at birth is the largest determinant of success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom