• 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!

How is poverty best eliminated?

What of the following does the best for eliminating poverty in the world?


  • Total voters
    80
First off, one needs to define poverty because there was a study based on the census that states that most Americans who are considered poor have a house with a garage as well as having enough food to prevent them from starving and an XBox for the kiddies. In my view if one has a place to stay, clothing on their backs and has adequate food then one cannot be poor- hence, true poverty has largely been eliminated in the US.

Now what do we do about a poverty of ambition? This country remains the greatest place in the world for those with a dream who are willing to work.
 
It's also a myth to say that the government can end the struggle of the middle class. As long as there's a middle class, people will be struggling. The government can't make everyone rich, and demonizing wealth goes against that goal.

I don't know many who claim that government can end the struggle of the middle class or make "everyone rich". Government can aid in the struggles of the very poor/poverty...and that is what we are talking about here. Its not about demonizing wealth.
 
I'm a bit of a California political junkie, as I've been fighting city hall for decades due to my business here. I pay close attention to bills going through the process and recieve notice any time bills I'm watching are acted on. The corrupt Progressive enterpise in Sacramento is even worse when one has a microscope on their criminal enterprise.

Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstein are the scum of the earth, with Pelosi leading the parade. I'm very familiar with the personal gain all three have received through the legislative actions the press works hard to keep quiet. If one draws a line between the history of the decline in Californias economic strength and when all three took office, there is no doubt who has been contributing to the result.

Mark is a great listen, and doesn't pull punches. I have never found any of his claims to be lacking merit.

State and local govt actually have an adversarial relationship with business. And its endless, mindless bureaucracy that create disincentives for businessmen/women.

I met the governator and boxer once at a funeral, Its a sham, rolled in glitter up there. Absolutely clueless. Nevermind the state PA and Paramedic agencies.
 
I don't know many who claim that government can end the struggle of the middle class or make "everyone rich". Government can aid in the struggles of the very poor/poverty...and that is what we are talking about here. Its not about demonizing wealth.

Did you somehow miss The Obama administration and his campaigns?

 
State and local govt actually have an adversarial relationship with business. And its endless, mindless bureaucracy that create disincentives for businessmen/women.

I met the governator and boxer once at a funeral, Its a sham, rolled in glitter up there. Absolutely clueless. Nevermind the state PA and Paramedic agencies.

There is a reason the State of California is ranked at the bottom for it's business environment. I call it the Progressive Machine
 
There is a reason the State of California is ranked at the bottom for it's business environment. I call it the Progressive Machine

From the sounds of it, you blame "progressives" when you lose a sock in the dryer.

"Progressive" is not a synonym for "things Ocean doesn't like."
 
From the sounds of it, you blame "progressives" when you lose a sock in the dryer.

"Progressive" is not a synonym for "things Ocean doesn't like."

Gee Kobie, I have never written it was. Progressives have trouble with context.
 
Gee Kobie, I have never written it was. Progressives have trouble with context.

Well golly, this is at least the third time today I've seen you prattle on about "progressives," and you've given absolutely zero context to your own comments outside of a couple of mild platitudes regarding them on the Purge thread.

BTW, I'm no progressive, and unlike (apparently) you, I actually know what the word means.
 
Well golly, this is at least the third time today I've seen you prattle on about "progressives," and you've given absolutely zero context to your own comments outside of a couple of mild platitudes regarding them on the Purge thread.

BTW, I'm no progressive, and unlike (apparently) you, I actually know what the word means.

Well, apparently you don't. The only time I reference Progressive is when the shoe fits. Other than that, I do appreciate you offering your opinion.
 
Well, apparently you don't. The only time I reference Progressive is when the shoe fits. Other than that, I do appreciate you offering your opinion.

You haven't said exactly WHAT progressive policies have caused anything, or even what you think "progressive policies" are; you've simply barfed up "X sucks because progressives, QED."
 
Here's how I view progressives/progressiveism:

Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia said:
Progressivism is a broad political philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition.

To me, this means that progressives, as wikipedia states, think advances in various areas will improve things.

However, I suspect that some progressives do not realize "advances" does not necessarily mean "good". After all, the nuclear bomb was an advancement.

Every advancement has it's negative side, so while progress can and does improve things, we must always be wary of what problems it may cause now or in the future.
 
You haven't said exactly WHAT progressive policies have caused anything, or even what you think "progressive policies" are; you've simply barfed up "X sucks because progressives, QED."

Well, I've certainly pointed to Caliifornia as a macro example. I could waste a lot of time and post all sorts of links and such, but in the end, it certainly wouldn't matter to you, so why bother?

You're welcome to believe I don't know what a Progressive is, that is your choice.
 
How is poverty best eliminated?

some ideas :

accept that teenagers are genetically programmed to screw, and do not have fully developed myelin sheaths in their prefrontal cortexes; a situation which often leads to less than stellar decision making. put them on birth control early, and possibly by default until they're ready for kiddos.

ensure that anyone anywhere has access to higher education without having to sign up for horrendous debt.

humanitarian missions in the third world, and spread the good parts of our culture. it's fun to be an American. it's fun enough that the communists in Russia got jealous and said "**** this ****." i've often thought that the best thing we could do for NK is to launch some internet satellites and then drop a bunch of smartphones.

train and hire people to do what needs to be done. there is a ****load of **** that needs to be done, and is not really being done because it's not profitable. do it anyway. those people will buy fun stuff with the extra money. we need people to buy fun stuff, as we are a consumer spending driven economy.

ship food and education to developing parts of the world. it might not make money immediately. it will, however, prevent a whole bunch of other bull**** which costs money, like wars, epidemics, and warlord nonsense.

and if the suggestions above are not enough, social safety nets.
 
Well golly, this is at least the third time today I've seen you prattle on about "progressives," and you've given absolutely zero context to your own comments outside of a couple of mild platitudes regarding them on the Purge thread.

BTW, I'm no progressive, and unlike (apparently) you, I actually know what the word means.

Progressive's are so often wrong, 3 times a day hardly does them justice. I thought the left loved "justice"-by however they describe it that day.
 
Here's how I view progressives/progressiveism:

Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


To me, this means that progressives, as wikipedia states, think advances in various areas will improve things.

However, I suspect that some progressives do not realize "advances" does not necessarily mean "good". After all, the nuclear bomb was an advancement.

Every advancement has it's negative side, so while progress can and does improve things, we must always be wary of what problems it may cause now or in the future.

I didn't check the definition at the source, but if that is how Wiki defines it, Wiki has little or no understanding of what progressivism in the modern USA is all about. Progressives do favor advancement in all those categories but they see advancement as being furthered by the collective, never the individual, and they see the means by which it is done as being by government and not via private initiative.

But if we go to the poll results thus far, I am much encouraged that so many understand that government cannot eliminate poverty, but that has to be done by individual initiative within a system that offers the greatest number of individual options, choices, opportunities, and possibilities and that also provides incentive and encouragement to escape poverty. A great nation does not pride itself on how many people it can make dependent on government and should consider a large number of people on government assistance as its greatest shame and failure. A great nation measures its success on the success of its people each looking to his/her own interests and thereby benefitting the whole.
 
some ideas :

accept that teenagers are genetically programmed to screw, and do not have fully developed myelin sheaths in their prefrontal cortexes; a situation which often leads to less than stellar decision making. put them on birth control early, and possibly by default until they're ready for kiddos.

ensure that anyone anywhere has access to higher education without having to sign up for horrendous debt.

humanitarian missions in the third world, and spread the good parts of our culture. it's fun to be an American. it's fun enough that the communists in Russia got jealous and said "**** this ****." i've often thought that the best thing we could do for NK is to launch some internet satellites and then drop a bunch of smartphones.

train and hire people to do what needs to be done. there is a ****load of **** that needs to be done, and is not really being done because it's not profitable. do it anyway. those people will buy fun stuff with the extra money. we need people to buy fun stuff, as we are a consumer spending driven economy.

ship food and education to developing parts of the world. it might not make money immediately. it will, however, prevent a whole bunch of other bull**** which costs money, like wars, epidemics, and warlord nonsense.

and if the suggestions above are not enough, social safety nets.

When you allow people to make and keep more money, opportunities like education open up. Since capitalism provides the best means to earn this money (see winning poll choices) its therefore superior in this way. :cool:
 
When you allow people to make and keep more money, opportunities like education open up. Since capitalism provides the best means to earn this money (see winning poll choices) its therefore superior in this way. :cool:

i have no problem with capitalism as part of the solution. i do not agree that capitalism will solve every problem by itself, however. we need both private and public sectors.
 
i have no problem with capitalism as part of the solution. i do not agree that capitalism will solve every problem by itself, however. we need both private and public sectors.

Not part-it is THE solution. Sprinkling in some marxist fail does not help.
 
Back
Top Bottom