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 41 of 54 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 537

Thread: How is poverty best eliminated?

  1. #401
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,584

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    It is the illogical ideas at play. If these single mothers would just get married, then their husbands will be presented with employment........because (magic).......the jobs will happen because they are married!

    Let's ignore the fact that a huge portion of those men left because they were unemployed......but of course, the reason they are unemployed is because of their own personal, inherent failings....wink wink.
    I totally get your point, but it is a fact that employers are more likely to hire someone who is married over someone who isn't. Most employers look for stable workers, and marriage is a sign of stability.

    Aside from that, I do agree that we need more good paying jobs, and that things like family values and education will not magically create those jobs.
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  2. #402
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,584

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Which side, in our American arena of politics, do you think exploits poverty for political reasons the most?
    It's pretty much equal.

    I can't tell you how many conservatives have told me that they don't want a higher minimum wage because "those people don't deserve more". I even had one conservative poster on this forum tell me that he didn't want socialized health insurance because he didn't want "those people to have what he has (insurance)."
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  3. #403
    Educator

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,115

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    These poll results are very interesting.
    "We need to ask some very tough questions of the senator from Illinois. It's not enough to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, it's not enough to be eloquent and a media darling. The only question will be how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye will people turn in order to turn a frog into a prince." -Eddie Huff

  4. #404
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Last Seen
    11-16-17 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,775

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    In the past poverty existed due to stuff being scarce. In the future stuff is likely to be much less scarce. So why is the elimination of poverty "irrational foolishness"?

    I'll agree that there will always be people who make poor financial and lifestyle choices, thus there will always be some sort of poverty, but for the most part it's possible to eliminate it.
    Thank you for the pleasant response

    My reply is your comment (highlighted above). Education alone, and particularly higher education, is not the solution; nor is the gifting of money and benefits; due precisely to your statement.

    The direction which might be somewhat instrumental, but will not solve the situation, is a concerted effort toward attitude adjustment. Teaching people they can improve their personal financial situations with smarter choices and 'never quit' directed efforts; no matter how menial their starting point.

    Have a great day "I"

    Thom Paine
    Remember, on the other side of that screen is a real person. ( Missouri Mule )

  5. #405
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    1. And your reply is simplistic, because you're not taking into consideration the total tax burden of the state. For instance, Washington's total tax burden is not that much less than California's, and California's total tax burden per capita is LESS than that of Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, West Virginia, or even Louisiana.

    2. Just because that is the current way that the poverty is measured does not mean it's the best way, just as the current way of measuring unemployment is not necessarily the best way to measure unemployment..

    ...and in either case, the majority of the nations with the worst poverty rates are RED states. That much, sir, is indisputable.
    I don't understand why you keep jumping into the pool. It's full of lava, not water.

    Tax Burden by state? First, the simplistic analysis you posted is from 12 years ago. Even then, Washington was ranked #32, while California was ranked #17. I'd hardly call that "not much less".


    NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -- Residents in which states pay the most in taxes? The figures below are from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation for 2002, the latest data available.


    Try this one, from 2011, which doesn't take into account the most recent income and sales taxes Progressive shoved through. You will note, in 2011, California was ranked #4, and Washington was ranked #27.

    Annual State-Local Tax Burden Ranking FY 2011 | Tax Foundation

    As to poverty rate. Supplemental Poverty Rate is the standard by which all measurements are used today. Who cares what you think? You can't use figures, and then throw them out when they don't suit you. You eliminate any remaining credibility when you do that. At this point your tank is past being on fumes, it's on absolute ZERO.

    Finally, as expected, you throw down the "oh yeah, well red/blue, so there".

    When presented facts, you've scrambled all over the place trying to defend an agenda and ideology that is proving a failure. You've gone from how grand the great socialized countries of Europe are, but then when confronted with facts about their condition today, launch into the Progressive meme of Red State/Blue State, which has been thoroughly debunked and relegated to the sewer from which it crawled. Then you have gone on a completely uninformed trip through facts that aren't actually supporting your beliefs, but are actually refuting them.

    CG, I give you credit for passion about what you want to be true. However, the fact is, your displaying the tactics of a pure ideologue, who will reject everything, and clutch at anything, to hold to your position.

    It didn't work. You're in Lava my friend, not water. You should have taken a moment to notice the difference.

  6. #406
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    Greetings, ocean515.

    The problem has been getting larger for many years, and we appear to be in the end stages of constant alarms going off and lights blinking red! Will they pay attention before it's too late? I doubt it, and when it finally implodes, maybe they will actually learn that there really is no "free lunch." Everything has a price, and all the new taxes they hope to levy on productive people won't be enough to go around. Another fantasy bites the dust...
    Hi Polgara

    This is what's happening. I don't know if the foundation of the business community in California is strong enough to shrug off the damaging impacts of the Progressive forces in Sacramento. When a state the size of California ranks at or near the top in unemployment in the country, that is a catastrophic statistic. How such a thing gets so ignored is remarkable to me.

    The very sad part is how harmful all this Progressive ideology has been on the most vulnerable people living in this state. Talk about lip service from politicians. Massive unemployment among minorities, etc, and then a hearty welcome to illegal aliens who are taking their jobs.

    It's the most disjointed, illogical, mind bending thing to watch here.

    That's why I call California a Progressive worst nightmare. It's the end game of their agenda, and they don't want anyone to see it.

  7. #407
    Sage
    BretJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:08 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,391

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    I think you meant to say that marriage reduces poverty, not that it is a "predictor of poverty"....as if it is the cause of poverty....but an indicator of a LACK of poverty (I don't know why I keep having to correct your statement!).

    If marriage causes less poverty, then it because of household income, ie, somehow, magically, marriage causes employment...JOBS!

    The point still remains, you have the cart in front of the horse.....single income homes are in poverty because of the lack of income, ie, our economy requires 2 earners to have any chance of getting out of poverty.....and even with 2 earners, a huge number of those households remain in poverty.

    It is due ENTIRELY to declining wages.

    You Bell Curvers ALWAYS make this a morality based argument and veer away from the economics.
    The morality and the economics kind of intersect. When both parents (married or not) are involved in the education/guidance/parenting of a child, it does two things IMHO. It reduces the economic burden of having to juggle work with parenting and in doing so, is more likely to create an environment where the child is better able to succeed morally and economically.

    Don't get me wrong. There are some awesome single parents that raise their kids right and married parents that suck at it. But in reality, that is primarily a result of how they were raised. Is it a far stretch to say that in order to break one part of the poverty cycle is to somehow motivate parents to do their part as parents?
    The opposite of hero is not villain, it is "bystander"
    " In doing what we ought we deserve no praise, because it is our duty." -Aurelius Augustine
    "But why do they use them to make Brawndo??!!"

  8. #408
    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
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,570

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    I don't understand why you keep jumping into the pool. It's full of lava, not water.

    Tax Burden by state? First, the simplistic analysis you posted is from 12 years ago. Even then, Washington was ranked #32, while California was ranked #17. I'd hardly call that "not much less".


    NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -- Residents in which states pay the most in taxes? The figures below are from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation for 2002, the latest data available.


    Try this one, from 2011, which doesn't take into account the most recent income and sales taxes Progressive shoved through. You will note, in 2011, California was ranked #4, and Washington was ranked #27.

    Annual State-Local Tax Burden Ranking FY 2011 | Tax Foundation

    As to poverty rate. Supplemental Poverty Rate is the standard by which all measurements are used today. Who cares what you think? You can't use figures, and then throw them out when they don't suit you. You eliminate any remaining credibility when you do that. At this point your tank is past being on fumes, it's on absolute ZERO.

    Finally, as expected, you throw down the "oh yeah, well red/blue, so there".

    When presented facts, you've scrambled all over the place trying to defend an agenda and ideology that is proving a failure. You've gone from how grand the great socialized countries of Europe are, but then when confronted with facts about their condition today, launch into the Progressive meme of Red State/Blue State, which has been thoroughly debunked and relegated to the sewer from which it crawled. Then you have gone on a completely uninformed trip through facts that aren't actually supporting your beliefs, but are actually refuting them.

    CG, I give you credit for passion about what you want to be true. However, the fact is, your displaying the tactics of a pure ideologue, who will reject everything, and clutch at anything, to hold to your position.

    It didn't work. You're in Lava my friend, not water. You should have taken a moment to notice the difference.
    First, a sincere thanks for pointing out my reference was from 11 years ago - if I'd seen that, I certainly wouldn't have used that reference. I was flat wrong on that one, for its information was certainly outdated. And I've got to give you credit for providing a good reference showing the current difference in tax burdens between the states.

    Your reference was not per capita, but showed the tax burden as a percentage of state income. Here's a 2012 reference showing the top ten highest and lowest per capita. The top states are blue (though two or three of them have Republican governors), and the only blue state in the bottom ten was New Hampshire...but the article also points out that NH has the highest property taxes in the nation.

    That said, I didn't back off from the discussion of Europe - far from it! I'm more than happy to continue discussing Europe, including how their economies are recovering even though they screwed up by adopting austerity measures (which the head of the IMF now frankly admits), albeit their recovery is much slower than America's since we went the stimulus route and thus got out of the recession (if not its longer-lasting effects) much more quickly.

    I shifted to California in my discussion with you because that's where you seemed most determined in your belief that progressive (AKA Keynesian) economics are a sure path to economic doom-and-gloom. And just as repeating 2+2=4 doesn't mean that it's not true, the fact that I keep bringing up the obvious disparities between red and blue states does not at all detract from the fact that the numbers indicate that blue states are generally more economically successful than red states.

    You really should get out some, go Down South and see how the people there live, especially the ones in the small towns that make up most of the conservative base that is the Deep South. Yes, there is certainly much poverty in California - no argument there. But as I've pointed out before, CA's economy is by most metrics improving. We'll see in a few years, won't we?

    And one more thing - here's some more red/blue state comparisons for you. Yes, there are some blue states that are as bad as the red states...but the overall trend is unmistakable:
    - violent crime and property crime are generally significantly more common in red states than in blue states.
    - the percentage of students that are low-income in red states is generally significantly higher than in blue states.
    - Residents of red states were significantly more likely to lack money for food than residents of blue states.
    - Residents of red states are significantly more likely to be receiving government benefits than are residents of blue states.
    - This county-by-county map shows red state residents are significantly more likely to be in poverty than residents of blue states.
    - Adults in red states are significantly less likely to have a bachelor's degree or higher than are residents of blue states.

    I can go on and on and on showing how red states are worse off than blue states, including in divorce rates, teenage pregnancy rates, homicide rates...you name it. But here's the kicker: these states are not poor because they are red - they are poor because they are generally rural, and the more rural a state, the more likely that state is to elect conservative politicians.

    On a side note, I remember when I first started pointing out these kinds of differences between red states and blue states, and the only - repeat, the only - metric where blue states were generally worse than red states was in drug use. Of course, that does not mean that more drugs equals better prosperity. It just means that those in blue states have more money and more disposable income.
    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

  9. #409
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    First, a sincere thanks for pointing out my reference was from 11 years ago - if I'd seen that, I certainly wouldn't have used that reference. I was flat wrong on that one, for its information was certainly outdated. And I've got to give you credit for providing a good reference showing the current difference in tax burdens between the states.

    Your reference was not per capita, but showed the tax burden as a percentage of state income. Here's a 2012 reference showing the top ten highest and lowest per capita. The top states are blue (though two or three of them have Republican governors), and the only blue state in the bottom ten was New Hampshire...but the article also points out that NH has the highest property taxes in the nation.

    That said, I didn't back off from the discussion of Europe - far from it! I'm more than happy to continue discussing Europe, including how their economies are recovering even though they screwed up by adopting austerity measures (which the head of the IMF now frankly admits), albeit their recovery is much slower than America's since we went the stimulus route and thus got out of the recession (if not its longer-lasting effects) much more quickly.

    I shifted to California in my discussion with you because that's where you seemed most determined in your belief that progressive (AKA Keynesian) economics are a sure path to economic doom-and-gloom. And just as repeating 2+2=4 doesn't mean that it's not true, the fact that I keep bringing up the obvious disparities between red and blue states does not at all detract from the fact that the numbers indicate that blue states are generally more economically successful than red states.

    You really should get out some, go Down South and see how the people there live, especially the ones in the small towns that make up most of the conservative base that is the Deep South. Yes, there is certainly much poverty in California - no argument there. But as I've pointed out before, CA's economy is by most metrics improving. We'll see in a few years, won't we?

    And one more thing - here's some more red/blue state comparisons for you. Yes, there are some blue states that are as bad as the red states...but the overall trend is unmistakable:
    - violent crime and property crime are generally significantly more common in red states than in blue states.
    - the percentage of students that are low-income in red states is generally significantly higher than in blue states.
    - Residents of red states were significantly more likely to lack money for food than residents of blue states.
    - Residents of red states are significantly more likely to be receiving government benefits than are residents of blue states.
    - This county-by-county map shows red state residents are significantly more likely to be in poverty than residents of blue states.
    - Adults in red states are significantly less likely to have a bachelor's degree or higher than are residents of blue states.

    I can go on and on and on showing how red states are worse off than blue states, including in divorce rates, teenage pregnancy rates, homicide rates...you name it. But here's the kicker: these states are not poor because they are red - they are poor because they are generally rural, and the more rural a state, the more likely that state is to elect conservative politicians.

    On a side note, I remember when I first started pointing out these kinds of differences between red states and blue states, and the only - repeat, the only - metric where blue states were generally worse than red states was in drug use. Of course, that does not mean that more drugs equals better prosperity. It just means that those in blue states have more money and more disposable income.
    Per capita is a bogus measure, especially when one considers that California has the highest supplemental poverty rate in the nation. There is no reason to use cherry picked, hand selected spin to try to hang on to your ideological position. The issue is tax burden. Heck, there is a couple million illegal aliens living in California who have been welcomed with open arms by Progressives, so how do they count for anything?

    Consider this, I'm not adding in the massive fee burden that Progressive legislators have burdened citizen with in California. For example, how much does it cost to register a car in Washington? $60, $80/yr? In California, the same car could be $500/yr

    I'm done here. You're clutching at straws, you've presented bogus arguments, and you've not even taken the time to make sure the data you present is reasonable or relevant. You're demonstrating that all you're doing is going on a crazed search to find anything that even hints at backing your ideological position.

    The Red/State Blue state meme is a joke. If you need to be remain married to that, then by all means, clutch to it tightly. It's meaningless but obviously important to Progressives. (Just hope the next election cycle your Blue states stay blue, otherwise, the meme vaporizes, doesn't it?)

    Have a good day.

  10. #410
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,357

    Re: How is poverty best eliminated?

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Hi Polgara

    This is what's happening. I don't know if the foundation of the business community in California is strong enough to shrug off the damaging impacts of the Progressive forces in Sacramento. When a state the size of California ranks at or near the top in unemployment in the country, that is a catastrophic statistic. How such a thing gets so ignored is remarkable to me.

    The very sad part is how harmful all this Progressive ideology has been on the most vulnerable people living in this state. Talk about lip service from politicians. Massive unemployment among minorities, etc, and then a hearty welcome to illegal aliens who are taking their jobs.

    It's the most disjointed, illogical, mind bending thing to watch here.

    That's why I call California a Progressive worst nightmare. It's the end game of their agenda, and they don't want anyone to see it.
    But people all over the world do see it, ocean. Some with the same mindset are probably silently applauding our eventual demise, since 5000 years of history has shown them that every government that has tried this has gone down the tubes. I'm sure it royally p***es off the powers that be that it's taking so long to accomplish their goal to bring us into their one-world-government fold, though, because it's costing them a lot of money, which may explain why it's being accelerated lately. Would you have thought these things could happen 30 or 40 years ago? I wouldn't have believed it if someone had told me! And this will be the first time in history that so many modern governments are all facing the same problems, at the same time, for the same reasons. The next few years will be __________ *fill in the blank*

    Meanwhile, other governments are actively working to take away our "favored nation" status, which will probably "officially" bankrupt us, since our debt is so great that it would take over 1000 years to be repaid, even at 100 percent taxation of everybody! Is this all happening by coincidence? Why of course it is!

Page 41 of 54 FirstFirst ... 31394041424351 ... 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
  •