• 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
Glen Contrarian said:
None, as far as I've seen - of course, I don't see all your posts - maybe you have and I simply didn't see it. If you can explain why it is that the blue states generally pay out more federal taxes than they receive, and why the red states generally receive more in federal funding than they pay out, please, enlighten me!

And while you're at it, please explain why red states generally:

- have higher divorce rates
- have higher teenage pregnancy rates
- have lower educational attainment rates
- have lower life expectancy rates
- have higher poverty rates

Yes, I can back up each of these. I look forward to your reply.



It is? What, exactly, are the 'obvious reasons'?



Y'know, California's taxes aren't much higher than here in Washington...yet most of the major businesses here in Washington (Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, et al) don't seem to be fleeing, and the richest man in the world (Bill Gates) certainly isn't running away from Washington state. Come to think of it, the most recent CEO of Microsoft (Steve Ballmer) just invested 2B in California when he bought the Clippers.



Please define "supplemental poverty rate"...because before I reply, I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. I say that because under the 'supplemental poverty rate', California's poverty rate is 23.8%...whereas under the traditional measure of the poverty rate, it's 13.2%. And regardless of which metric you use, the significant majority of states with the highest poverty rates are RED states.



Perhaps the same way that the financial capital of the world - New York City - has remained as such since at least WWII. You see, it's not just California that has high taxes - it's also New York, and there's been scads of rich people in both states for longer than either one of us has been alive. Sure, you might find a few here or there that do leave because of taxes...but most don't. Instead, they stay...and they continue to MAKE money in both states...because if the rich didn't continue to make money as they have done so for generations, they wouldn't stay, now would they?



Again, you say California's economy is going to crash and burn...and I say it won't. You and I will be on DP for a some time to come, and here's a prediction: five years from now, CA's economy will still be improving, and you'll still claim it isn't, that it's still about to crash and burn.



Hey - you're the one who's claiming that the only thing that's holding up CA's economy is "other peoples' money"...whereas in reality, California receives about 78 cents in federal funding for every dollar it pays out in federal taxes. In fact, if you'll check the same reference, you'll find that almost all red states receive more in federal funding than they pay out in federal taxes...which means that we in blue states are essentially paying to help red state economies stay afloat.
Click to expand...

I'll only comment on two things you've posted, since they illustrate how far off the mark you are on what you think you know, and what is the truth.

1) "Y'know, California's taxes aren't much higher than here in Washington..." Washington has no income tax. California's is among the highest in the nation at over 12% for the highest earners. The state sales tax rate is the highest in the nation. Obviously you have no idea what you are posting.

2) The Supplemental Poverty Rate is the current way poverty is measured in the United States. Progressives in California have managed over the last 15 years to move the state into first place in that terrible measure.

Since you clearly don't know what your "talking" about, as I have written, I have no interest in running through the merry-go-round with you. It is a complete waste of time and energy.

Have a good one GC. Pick your battles better, this one you lost when you struck the first letter.
 
ocean515 said:
I'll only comment on two things you've posted, since they illustrate how far off the mark you are on what you think you know, and what is the truth.

1) "Y'know, California's taxes aren't much higher than here in Washington..." Washington has no income tax. California's is among the highest in the nation at over 12% for the highest earners. The state sales tax rate is the highest in the nation. Obviously you have no idea what you are posting.

2) The Supplemental Poverty Rate is the current way poverty is measured in the United States. Progressives in California have managed over the last 15 years to move the state into first place in that terrible measure.

Since you clearly don't know what your "talking" about, as I have written, I have no interest in running through the merry-go-round with you. It is a complete waste of time and energy.

Have a good one GC. Pick your battles better, this one you lost when you struck the first letter.
Click to expand...

Its always humorous to hear liberals who dont even know the situation here, tell us how wonderful CA actually is.
 
US Conservative said:
Its always humorous to hear liberals who dont even know the situation here, tell us how wonderful CA actually is.
Click to expand...

California is their worst nightmare, because it has been the petri dish for their Progressive agenda for years and years. The results are in, and they need to hide from it. Or in some posters cases, invent results and try to convince others their fantasies are true.

The kicker is when they realize they are cornered, they just exclaim, "leave, if you don't like it".
 
ocean515 said:
California is their worst nightmare, because it has been the petri dish for their Progressive agenda for years and years. The results are in, and they need to hide from it. Or in some posters cases, invent results and try to convince others their fantasies are true.

The kicker is when they realize they are cornered, they just exclaim, "leave, if you don't like it".
Click to expand...

Yup, nothing but the same old story. And since California leads in these liberal pipe dreams, when these demonstrably failed policies are seriously discussed elsewhere, Im the first to show its been tried and failed. But these leftists always excuse the failure and try again. No real synthesis occurs, it never does.
 
ocean515 said:
I'll only comment on two things you've posted, since they illustrate how far off the mark you are on what you think you know, and what is the truth.

1) "Y'know, California's taxes aren't much higher than here in Washington..." Washington has no income tax. California's is among the highest in the nation at over 12% for the highest earners. The state sales tax rate is the highest in the nation. Obviously you have no idea what you are posting.

2) The Supplemental Poverty Rate is the current way poverty is measured in the United States. Progressives in California have managed over the last 15 years to move the state into first place in that terrible measure.

Since you clearly don't know what your "talking" about, as I have written, I have no interest in running through the merry-go-round with you. It is a complete waste of time and energy.

Have a good one GC. Pick your battles better, this one you lost when you struck the first letter.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ocean515 said:
California is their worst nightmare, because it has been the petri dish for their Progressive agenda for years and years. The results are in, and they need to hide from it. Or in some posters cases, invent results and try to convince others their fantasies are true.

The kicker is when they realize they are cornered, they just exclaim, "leave, if you don't like it".
Click to expand...

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

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... :shock:
 
Glen Contrarian said:
So...which economies are more heavily regulated, and which are not?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking regulation past the point of effective solving of tragedy-of-the-commons structures has a negative effect on standards of living. India, for example, suffers mightily from a choking bureaucratic governing structure, and US businesses are pretty frank that the regulatory burden in the US encourages them to invest in infrastructure elsewhere.
 
cpwill said:
Generally speaking regulation past the point of effective solving of tragedy-of-the-commons structures has a negative effect on standards of living. India, for example, suffers mightily from a choking bureaucratic governing structure, and US businesses are pretty frank that the regulatory burden in the US encourages them to invest in infrastructure elsewhere.
Click to expand...
The problem is, IMO, that in many cases we have regulations where it hurts and none where it would help.
 
cpwill said:
Generally speaking regulation past the point of effective solving of tragedy-of-the-commons structures has a negative effect on standards of living. India, for example, suffers mightily from a choking bureaucratic governing structure, and US businesses are pretty frank that the regulatory burden in the US encourages them to invest in infrastructure elsewhere.
Click to expand...

If you'd really investigate, what you'd find in India is much the same as you'd find in any third-world nation: vast, endemic corruption in the public and private sector. The regulations are usually ignored, and only enforced when one has ticked off the wrong person in the powers that be. Regulations that are ignored are no different from not having regulations at all.

You might think that corruption is bad here in America, but the corruption that we do have is nothing like what is found in third-world nations - what we have isn't a fraction of what they have. I know this first-hand.
 
I didn't bother to read all 357 posts, but did anyone mention the possiblity that education, and better family values could help reduce poverty? Those weren't on the polls, but they seem like obvious choices to me.

Aside from that, our government establishing a full employment policy seems to me to be a better alternative than government freebies.

We may ask "what's the cost of that", but is it any more than the cost of paying people to do nothing? At least when we pay them to do meaningful work, we are creating value and wealth and not sending the signal that it's OK to be a slacker.

How much does it cost us each year to have millions of people who want to work, but who can't find jobs, sitting on the couch watching tv?

How much more wealth could be created this year if everyone who wanted to work was provided with a meaningful and productive job, instead of being provided with money for doing nothing?
 
imagep said:
I didn't bother to read all 357 posts, but did anyone mention the possiblity that education, and better family values could help reduce poverty? Those weren't on the polls, but they seem like obvious choices to me.

Aside from that, our government establishing a full employment policy seems to me to be a better alternative than government freebies.

We may ask "what's the cost of that", but is it any more than the cost of paying people to do nothing? At least when we pay them to do meaningful work, we are creating value and wealth and not sending the signal that it's OK to be a slacker.

How much does it cost us each year to have millions of people who want to work, but who can't find jobs, sitting on the couch watching tv?

How much more wealth could be created this year if everyone who wanted to work was provided with a meaningful and productive job, instead of being provided with money for doing nothing?
Click to expand...
Personally, I think education is the key to it all.

If educated, children will grow up with a better understanding of how things work, which will lead to better elected officials (because better educated voters), which will lead to better regulations, etc.,etc.
 
The Mark said:
Personally, I think education is the key to it all.

If educated, children will grow up with a better understanding of how things work, which will lead to better elected officials (because better educated voters), which will lead to better regulations, etc.,etc.
Click to expand...

True but it is unlikely that education improves without the family values improving.

School alone will not get the job done. Parents need to man up
 
Sabanist said:
True but it is unlikely that education improves without the family values improving.

School alone will not get the job done. Parents need to man up
Click to expand...
A good teacher could get a student learning even without parent/guardian support, I suspect. Although it would be much harder and fail alot more.

Frankly I think education might help family values more than family values might help education.
 
Sabanist said:
True but it is unlikely that education improves without the family values improving.

School alone will not get the job done. Parents need to man up
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true Bell Curver.

"Family values....creates jobs"
 
Glen Contrarian said:
If you'd really investigate, what you'd find in India is much the same as you'd find in any third-world nation: vast, endemic corruption in the public and private sector. The regulations are usually ignored, and only enforced when one has ticked off the wrong person in the powers that be. Regulations that are ignored are no different from not having regulations at all.
Click to expand...

Then most countries have no regulations, as most regulatory codes are so complex as to be beyond individual human comprehension, and so most are in violation of one or another, and it is ignored.

You might think that corruption is bad here in America, but the corruption that we do have is nothing like what is found in third-world nations - what we have isn't a fraction of what they have. I know this first-hand.
Click to expand...

:shrug: you're not telling me anything I don't know - heck, I read about Nigeria for a living.


None of which, however, alters the basic points I outlined for you.
 
The Mark said:
A good teacher could get a student learning even without parent/guardian support, I suspect. Although it would be much harder and fail alot more.

Frankly I think education might help family values more than family values might help education.
Click to expand...

The available social statistics do not support that claim. The most powerful factor is the family situation.
 
imagep said:
I didn't bother to read all 357 posts, but did anyone mention the possiblity that education, and better family values could help reduce poverty?
Click to expand...

It's been a while since I last looked at the numbers, but as I recall, roughly 1/2-2/3rds of child poverty could be ended through the simple expedient of having their parents marry.
 
cpwill said:
Then most countries have no regulations, as most regulatory codes are so complex as to be beyond individual human comprehension, and so most are in violation of one or another, and it is ignored.



:shrug: you're not telling me anything I don't know - heck, I read about Nigeria for a living.


None of which, however, alters the basic points I outlined for you.
Click to expand...

You're confusing complexity with corruption. Laws are complex, yes...but certainly not beyond comprehension. That's nothing more than a cop-out by those who don't want to have to abide by those laws.
 
Poverty has always existed... and will continue .... in perpetuity. The fanciful idealism of it's elimination is irrational foolishness.

Thom Paine
 
cpwill said:
It's been a while since I last looked at the numbers, but as I recall, roughly 1/2-2/3rds of child poverty could be ended through the simple expedient of having their parents marry.
Click to expand...
Sure, again, marriage creates jobs.

It's magic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom