• 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
US Conservative said:
Yes. Liberals and the war on poverty created this mess. Incentives to dissolve the family (which means poverty), and make the state a womans "husband".

This is how destructive the left is.
Click to expand...
Yes, welfare causes job loss, just as soup lines cause depressions.
Horses should push carts.
 
US Conservative said:
Actually, more accurately marriage prevents poverty. In fact single parenting is the single biggest predictor of poverty-and its closely associated with other issues, like drugs and violence.
Click to expand...
I know, poverty causes job losses.....it is as plain as the horse behind my cart.
 
US Conservative said:
Thats not even remotely what I said. Please read.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cephus said:
It depends on what you mean by poor. If you mean those who have less than others, then you're right because statistically someone will always have less than someone else. That's a pretty useless definition though, according to that definition, Warren Buffet is poor compared to Bill Gates because Buffet only has $62 million, compared to Gates' $76 million. That really doesn't mean anything though.
Click to expand...

The definition of "poor" is not having less than Bill Gates. Warren Buffet is not poor by anyone's standard of definition.

Webster's definition of "poor":
poor adjective \ˈpu̇r, ˈpȯr\
: having little money or few possessions : not having enough money for the basic things that people need to live properly
Click to expand...

There will always be poverty in the world. If you are a religious person, I would refer you to the Bible, as backup. (Matthew)
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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.
Click to expand...

First off I never said marriage=jobs. Please focus. Secondly if you have a link that shows these men leave marriages because they are employed I'd love to see it.
 
Mason66 said:
And shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

There will always be poverty. The poor can be helped, but poverty among some cannot be eliminated. It should be included in the poll. It is silly to think nonsensical things instead of recognizing reality.

It is a part of being human. Your problem is that you think being poor is so awful. To many, it is not. There are religious people in the world who shun worldly goods and intentionally live in poverty, so they can concentrate on their faith and not be diverted with earthly things.

As Jesus said, "The poor will always be with you....." [Matthew]
 
JumpinJack said:
There will always be poverty. The poor can be helped, but poverty among some cannot be eliminated. It should be included in the poll. It is silly to think nonsensical things instead of recognizing reality.

It is a part of being human. Your problem is that you think being poor is so awful. To many, it is not. There are religious people in the world who shun worldly goods and intentionally live in poverty, so they can concentrate on their faith and not be diverted with earthly things.

As Jesus said, "The poor will always be with you....." [Matthew]
Click to expand...

I agree that being poor isn't always awful (at least not for me and people I know/knew) but the issue comes out of class struggle. The left constantly exploits this for political purposes.
 
US Conservative said:
I agree that being poor isn't always awful (at least not for me and people I know/knew) but the issue comes out of class struggle. The left constantly exploits this for political purposes.
Click to expand...

We can agree on that, then. The govt should do all it can, IMO, to ensure the opportunities are there for all, and take care of poor children (I believe that if you don't have good medical care and food and education as a child, you are doomed to a life of poverty). But there's only so much the govt can do. Poverty is exploited for political reasons.
 
JumpinJack said:
We can agree on that, then. The govt should do all it can, IMO, to ensure the opportunities are there for all, and take care of poor children (I believe that if you don't have good medical care and food and education as a child, you are doomed to a life of poverty). But there's only so much the govt can do. Poverty is exploited for political reasons.
Click to expand...

Which side, in our American arena of politics, do you think exploits poverty for political reasons the most?
 
JumpinJack said:
The definition of "poor" is not having less than Bill Gates. Warren Buffet is not poor by anyone's standard of definition.
Click to expand...

That's why I said it depended on how you defined the word. Lots of people have some really bizarre usage of terms that seem to come out of left field, that's why you have to be careful and ask.

There will always be poverty in the world. If you are a religious person, I would refer you to the Bible, as backup. (Matthew)
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wouldn't trust the Bible farther than I could throw it.
 
US Conservative said:
First off I never said marriage=jobs. Please focus.
Click to expand...
That is the magical implication of claiming "marriage "could" reduce poverty". Focus...please.
Secondly if you have a link that shows these men leave marriages because they are employed I'd love to see it.
Click to expand...
I did not say they leave because of employment....in fact I said the OPPOSITE. FOCUS, PLEASE!
 
US Conservative said:
Which side, in our American arena of politics, do you think exploits poverty for political reasons the most?
Click to expand...
Rhetorically? That answer is obvious in the "conversations" produced by cons like:

Yes. Liberals and the war on poverty created this mess. Incentives to dissolve the family (which means poverty), and make the state a womans "husband". This is how destructive the left is.
Click to expand...

But then the argument will get shifted to "buying of votes" and other nonsense.......which is countered by the fact that poor white conservatives are the largest segment of poverty beneficiaries.....and they are not voting Dem....so that argument crumbles.

What remains?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That is the magical implication of claiming "marriage "could" reduce poverty". Focus...please.I did not say they leave because of employment....in fact I said the OPPOSITE. FOCUS, PLEASE!
Click to expand...

I dont see whats so hard to understand here. I said single marriage was the greatest single predictor of poverty. Now this is a fact, and if you dispute this-kindly show evidence now.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Rhetorically? That answer is obvious in the "conversations" produced by cons like:



But then the argument will get shifted to "buying of votes" and other nonsense.......which is countered by the fact that poor white conservatives are the largest segment of poverty beneficiaries.....and they are not voting Dem....so that argument crumbles.

What remains?
Click to expand...

Your logic is fractured. This is all about buying votes, and here in CA-where we have 1/3 of the nations welfare recipients its plain to see.
 
US Conservative said:
I dont see whats so hard to understand here. I said single marriage was the greatest single predictor of poverty. Now this is a fact, and if you dispute this-kindly show evidence now.
Click to expand...
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.
 
US Conservative said:
Your logic is fractured. This is all about buying votes, and here in CA-where we have 1/3 of the nations welfare recipients its plain to see.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what "welfare" you are referring to, but Texas had more SNAP recipients than CA in 2008.....but then maybe TX went blue sometime ago and I missed it.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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!
Click to expand...

Words have meanings. I used the appropriate terminology and you have demonstrated twice you dont know what they mean.

If you dont understand "single marriage is the greatest single predictor of poverty" I wont take the time to teach you.
 
US Conservative said:
Words have meanings. I used the appropriate terminology and you have demonstrated twice you dont know what they mean.

If you dont understand "single marriage is the greatest single predictor of poverty" I wont take the time to teach you.
Click to expand...
"Single marriage".
Yeppers, you got me there.....obviously above my pay grade.

Is that a Mormon reference?

PS....again i love how you avoid the socioeconomic factors.....while focused on your error filled semantics.
 
Last edited:
US Conservative said:
Single parenthood, my fruit was low hung, almost as much as your argument.
Click to expand...
Your idioms are really messed up, low hanging fruit has a completely different meaning....but then I have really no idea WTF you meant.
 
Thom Paine said:
Poverty has always existed... and will continue .... in perpetuity. The fanciful idealism of it's elimination is irrational foolishness.

Thom Paine
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom