View Poll Results: What of the following does the best for eliminating poverty in the world?

Voters
1003. You may not vote on this poll
  • Private property.

    55 5.48%
  • Unions.

    315 31.41%
  • Personal liberty.

    69 6.88%
  • Entitlements.

    403 40.18%
  • Taxation

    463 46.16%
  • Freedom from coercion/association.

    52 5.18%
  • Government programs/policies.

    410 40.88%
  • The free market.

    79 7.88%
  • Class struggle.

    14 1.40%
  • Working for oneself.

    59 5.88%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 12 of 54 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 537

Thread: How is poverty best eliminated?

  1. #111
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    Yeah, you got it.
    Popular opinion is against free trade?

    Hmm..

    Well I suppose my opinion =/= popular opinion.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  2. #112
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,538

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Well first, show where I said "first-world socialized democracies".

    Second,
    Attachment 67171407
    Yes, look at that. The overall numbers in the first graph is NOT what is important, because populations grow over time. What is important is the second graph, where the poverty rate has pretty much stayed steady - between 12-15% since the mid 1960's. Yes, we have more people in poverty now than before then because our population GREW...but our poverty RATE is not that much different.

    Sadly, data prior to 1959 is lacking and would take some determined digging to find. Poverty rates prior to the "New Deal" are of course going to be high considering the affects of the depression and the dust bowl.
    Speaking of the Depression, what brought us out of the Depression? WWII, of course. And how did WWII bring us out of the Depression? I mean, if socialism is always bad, then WWII should have driven us further into the Depression instead of pulling us out of it, since WWII was - in economic terms - the biggest government-funded economic stimulus in American history, complete with millions of government jobs that were not there before, and millions more of government-funded jobs building ships and tanks and whatnot.

    Problem is, according to conservative economic dogma, what we did to build our military for WWII SHOULD have driven us further into the Depression.

    List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Feel free to look up the socio-economic structure of the ones you want to. Of course, you probably won't like the fact that data is based upon income vs cost of living, something that the US does not do, as reported by those local governments.

    Take a look at standards of living. Quality of Life Index by Country 2014 Mid Year
    Look at all those socialist countries and closed market countries at the bottom.

    Now take a look at cost of living Cost of Living Index by Country 2014 Mid Year
    Wow, look at all those "first-world socialized democracies" at the top.
    "Cost of living", sir, does not matter much at all. How do we know this? Pick a rich city - ANY rich city - and see what the cost of living is there. Singapore? Monte Carlo? London? Tokyo? Sydney? Hong Kong? Go ahead, pick one! Are the people living there in grinding poverty? No. What matters more, sir, is cost of living compared to median wage. What matters is the overall STANDARD of living, not the cost of living. Otherwise, if this were not the case, then Mississippi would be the most prosperous state in the nation...but it's not. Instead, Mississippi's standard of living is - like its cost of living - at the very bottom.

    Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. You're pretending that those "socialist countries and closed market countries at the bottom" are what I'm talking about...but I am NOT talking about them, am I? I am referring to first-world socialized democracies...which includes most of western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan...and America. NONE of these are "closed-market" economies...and ALL of them are socialized democracies. FYI, the fact that a nation is a socialized democracy does not guarantee first-world status...but it makes it a heck of a lot more likely. Conversely, the fact that a nation has small government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation may not absolutely guarantee third-world status...but it sure as heck looks like it.

    The US, the least socialized of those nations is second highest in standard of living but way down the list of cost of living and near the bottom of people living in abject poverty (other than homeless people, we don't actually have a population living in abject poverty.)
    America's more socialized than you seem to realize. Most of our federal budget is taken up with socialistic programs - welfare, HUD, social security, HHS, you name it. Sooo...yes, America IS a socialized democracy and has been one probably since before you were born. Get used to it.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  3. #113
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Yes, look at that. The overall numbers in the first graph is NOT what is important, because populations grow over time. What is important is the second graph, where the poverty rate has pretty much stayed steady - between 12-15% since the mid 1960's. Yes, we have more people in poverty now than before then because our population GREW...but our poverty RATE is not that much different.



    Speaking of the Depression, what brought us out of the Depression? WWII, of course. And how did WWII bring us out of the Depression? I mean, if socialism is always bad, then WWII should have driven us further into the Depression instead of pulling us out of it, since WWII was - in economic terms - the biggest government-funded economic stimulus in American history, complete with millions of government jobs that were not there before, and millions more of government-funded jobs building ships and tanks and whatnot.

    Problem is, according to conservative economic dogma, what we did to build our military for WWII SHOULD have driven us further into the Depression.



    "Cost of living", sir, does not matter much at all. How do we know this? Pick a rich city - ANY rich city - and see what the cost of living is there. Singapore? Monte Carlo? London? Tokyo? Sydney? Hong Kong? Go ahead, pick one! Are the people living there in grinding poverty? No. What matters more, sir, is cost of living compared to median wage. What matters is the overall STANDARD of living, not the cost of living. Otherwise, if this were not the case, then Mississippi would be the most prosperous state in the nation...but it's not. Instead, Mississippi's standard of living is - like its cost of living - at the very bottom.

    Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. You're pretending that those "socialist countries and closed market countries at the bottom" are what I'm talking about...but I am NOT talking about them, am I? I am referring to first-world socialized democracies...which includes most of western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan...and America. NONE of these are "closed-market" economies...and ALL of them are socialized democracies. FYI, the fact that a nation is a socialized democracy does not guarantee first-world status...but it makes it a heck of a lot more likely. Conversely, the fact that a nation has small government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation may not absolutely guarantee third-world status...but it sure as heck looks like it.



    America's more socialized than you seem to realize. Most of our federal budget is taken up with socialistic programs - welfare, HUD, social security, HHS, you name it. Sooo...yes, America IS a socialized democracy and has been one probably since before you were born. Get used to it.
    Apparently we have another idiot who thinks things like the military are socialist programs. If you are that blinded by stupidity, no need to argue further.

    Common defense, law enforcement and other are not "socialist", they are why governments exist.

    I never said that the US was not a social democracy, only that it was the least socialistic of them. Perhaps part of your problems is that you seem to have an extreme lack of ability concerning reading comprehension.
    Last edited by DVSentinel; 08-15-14 at 07:54 PM.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  4. #114
    Sage
    Born Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sonny and Nice
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 04:21 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,396

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    =Glen Contrarian;1063644517But what you're doing is confusing a snapshot with overall trend. It takes TIME to recover - economic recoveries don't happen overnight, and can take several years if it's bad enough. And you know what? All three are STILL first-world nations, unlike ANY nation that has small government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation.
    First world, far from it. Burdened with mountains of debt and high unemployment. They were using the Keynesian theory of borrow and spend for so many years and where it get them. A mountain of debt and 25% unemployment. And you stand by the Keynesian theory.

    Thanks to the fact that the people live in a first-world socialized nation, they are mostly NOT homeless, but are receiving aids and allowances that allow them to recover. If you think this is stupid, ask yourself this: how can you get hired on (much less maintain) a job if you're homeless, meaning you can't take baths, can't keep your clothes clean, can't shave, etc.? But I guess you yourself think it's better for people to be homeless than it is for you to pay a cup of coffee's worth more in taxes.
    They have been trying to recover for years and went broke trying to do it. And you say the 25% of the people are getting aid and allowances are doing great, I call that living in poverty. You liberals want to eyewash everything and deny the facts. Socialism in Spain and in Greece is a picture perfect failure of Socialism. And you say pour more money on the problem and all will go away, problem is no one will give them any money. Does naive mean anything to you?

    You have no real experience in third-world nations, do you? Or if you went to such places you didn't pay attention. Because if you knew what life is like there - as I do - you'd know that while Spain, Greece, and (to a MUCH lesser extent) France are going through relatively tough times...these 'tough times' they're going through are still FAR better than that in ANY nation that has small government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation.

    All you seem to be able to think of is "Socialized first-world democracies bad"...but you're NOT thinking, "compared to what?"
    Now you want to compare Spain with the most impoverished countries such that are prevalent in Africa. I have been to many of them. That is not the point, the point is socialism such as in Greece and in Spain does no work. France is no better, they are all self destructing. Many of those countries in Africa had no economy to begin. Spain, Greece and France did and now because of their socialistic views they are self-destructing. And you use them as a model that the US should follow. I have said over and over, liberals never care about jobs, never have never will.
    Last edited by Born Free; 08-15-14 at 09:52 PM.
    Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
    Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
    Obama's legacy - President Donald Trump

  5. #115
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    What works best to eliminate poverty?
    None of the poll options will eliminate poverty.

    The only way to eliminate poverty is to greatly reduce the planet's population.

    Thereby then once resources are no longer scarce, there won't be any poor.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  6. #116
    Advisor
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Last Seen
    11-25-15 @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    531

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Working and a paycheck is a good start at ending poverty. But then again it is much easier to blame others for any misfortunes or bad choices made by someone.

  7. #117
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,133

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Consider the possibility that the shoe is on the other foot, that I'm right and you're wrong. Consider that these websites are engaging in the practice you accuse me of indulging in.
    that's your reply? consider the possibility that the math is wrong?

    okay . I went back and re-figured. The data still says that you are incorrect.

    Still, it's true, in a way, that our tax system remains technically progressive simply because nobody above a certain percentile of income makes enough money to possess a share in the trading pool that isn't undermined by excessive debt. You can only seriously tax rich people because rich people are the only people that seriously have any money.
    That is incorrect. Europe's middle class make less money, and pay higher taxes than America's.

    Still, the contributions of a company like Apple are vastly lower than the benefits it received from American infrastructure and security, which is why we rely on foreign money lenders to make ends meet.
    That is false - Apple's social benefits astronomically outweigh its social costs. That, after all, is why it has the profits it does. Furthermore, revenues are at an all time high. The reason we are dependent upon lenders is because we have a spending problem.

    Indeed. If you could realize that, you would be a step closer to realizing the true nature of power and ambition in the United States and what exactly the goals and priorities of our leadership are.
    no thanks. I long ago gave up the cheap intellectual cheapness of the fundamental assumption error. people who disagree with you are not evil for doing so.

    Consider two expensive bloated military projects from Lockheed Martin which happen to be spread out over 40+ states with the lobbying support of hundreds of congressmen. Is the highest priority to ensure we have the best and most efficient war-making ability for the 21st century, or making sure that Lockheed Martin doesn't suffer the consequences of its own incompetence and inability to supply the capabilities that they promised and time frames that were specified? For which reason they rewarded with the contract?
    Yup. That's how smart companies buy off congresscritters. I'm missing the part where the conservative movement - who argues that we need to reduce the incentives for companies to do so by reducing the return on investment - are somehow responsible for Lockheed Martins' corporatist decision-making, which if anything is more ideologically aligned with the left side of the aisle.

    I'm also still not sure how that ties directly into the tax code, since that is simply local politics rather than tax law.

    Poverty in America is measured in private debt and reliance on welfare.
    That is incorrect. Poverty in America is measured in income. That's why we have a federal poverty line. As an example, I have an uncle who is probably about some ~3-4 millionish in debt. He would be utterly impoverished under your scenario, despite the fact that his net worth is probably in the $~8-10 million range.

    Our poor people have commodities they can't afford and houses they can't pay off, and because they have those things they can't afford to contribute to the tax pool. Part of how the Scandinavian countries keep their welfare systems manageable is by ensuring balanced participation in the trading pool from all level of society, sufficient so that nearly every citizen is capable of contributing to the public welfare.

    Our poverty is vastly excessive compared to other developed nations by any metric.


    From The Economist:



  8. #118
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Branching posts. Nice. Guess there was literally no way to keep this manageable.

    okay . I went back and re-figured. The data still says that you are incorrect.
    The data you quoted says I'm wrong. From a source that is wearing its agenda on its sleeve and announcing it to the reader. The effective corporate tax rate at 12.1%, with something like 26% in the communications industry bringing it up and something like Apple bringing it down.

    Keep staring at your numbers, though. Maybe someday they will be true.

    That is incorrect. Europe's middle class make less money, and pay higher taxes than America's.
    ... which is a pointless distinction when the middle class in America is shrinking and poverty is rising. You seem to have this implicit assumption that I'm arguing Europe represents some kind of economic golden age. I've been there and I know they don't. However, their welfare system is designed to crush poverty at a grassroots level.

    That is false - Apple's social benefits astronomically outweigh its social costs. That, after all, is why it has the profits it does. Furthermore, revenues are at an all time high. The reason we are dependent upon lenders is because we have a spending problem.
    1/5 of Americans can't make enough money to buy their way into the trading pool, so we spend money to enable to participation at an entry, minimum level. We also have to shoulder global security. When the Athenians and Romans did that, they exacted tribute/taxes, but Americans have to finance it ourselves.

    no thanks. I long ago gave up the cheap intellectual cheapness of the fundamental assumption error. people who disagree with you are not evil for doing so.
    ... that would depend on how you define "evil."

    Yup. That's how smart companies buy off congresscritters. I'm missing the part where the conservative movement - who argues that we need to reduce the incentives for companies to do so by reducing the return on investment - are somehow responsible for Lockheed Martins' corporatist decision-making, which if anything is more ideologically aligned with the left side of the aisle.
    ... because the Northwest liberals have such deep roots in the historically Republican-aligned defense industry that tangibly and obviously has political connections to Republicans and centrist Democrats.

    You seem to have worked it out in your head that whenever a corporation does something you are forced to acknowledge is bad, it must somehow have something to do with the left side of the aisle.

    I'm also still not sure how that ties directly into the tax code, since that is simply local politics rather than tax law.
    ... the point is that the right-wing is indifferent to something you think they would care about it. You would think they care about (a), but it turns out what really concerns them is (b).

    That is incorrect. Poverty in America is measured in income. That's why we have a federal poverty line. As an example, I have an uncle who is probably about some ~3-4 millionish in debt. He would be utterly impoverished under your scenario, despite the fact that his net worth is probably in the $~8-10 million range.
    ... what? You had to branch the argument to say this?

    Crippling debt is what is pushing people out of the middle class. Obviously the national government metric does look at it that way but I'm not sure why you think a system that carries water for the status quo would have any bearing or meaningfulness on this discussion.


    ... in my experience you start using these excessive smileys whenever you are in the wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    a
    Last edited by Morality Games; 08-15-14 at 11:52 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Indeed it is sad. It's been a remarkable shell game Sacramento has been playing since Davis was booted from office. It boggles my mind how willing the public is in buying it. Brown and the rest of his Progressive cohorts are drunk with lust for more revenue, no question about it. Considering what they have created, it's no wonder they are. The misinformation and spin is the most amazing thing I've ever seen, and they get a free ride on it. I'm not sure what is worse, the free ride, or the actual misinformation and spin.

    Perhaps the worst part about their madness is how poorly the business community is treated. California should be leading the nation in economic activity, as it used to do. It's got everything going for it, except a state government that sees the private sector as a means to economic prosperity for all.

    Interesting you have a chance to provide some opinion in the process. That must be an eye opener at times.
    We have sham leaders but I think they are just a symptom. Remove the cause and the symptom goes way-we have ignorant and uneducated voters who decide based on emotion. Nowhere is this worse than CA (in the us). Im reminded of the "bullet train" fiasco. I remember seeing idiot after idiot talking about what a great idea it was-some people thought "everyone will get free rides whenever they want". The thing is if you talk to many of these uninformed people they come around quickly.

    They scared the industrial, manufacturing, tech, and defense industries out-the largest number went to texas but now ex-californians are trying to turn that in to ca. Like parasites. Did you hear about nancy pelosi's personal financial benefit from policies she voted for? Just briefly heard about it on levin.

    The polling thing is great fun, and actually pays ok. Most things you never hear about again but some end up in the news in 6 months or a year.

  10. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Successful capitalists are the worst enemy capitalism has.
    Riggght.

Page 12 of 54 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •