• 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
I didn't offer a defense. I wrote that it's a bogus Progressive Meme. Again, the Red State Blue State issue is dead. It's an invented Progressive Maching meme that is full of rediculous conclusions, causations, and downright twisted thinking that only those desperate to draw some kind of Enlightened vs. redneck biblethunper conclusion use it.

If one looks at the history of states over decades, the colors can and do switch. If one looks at how these colors are assigned, it's based on recent elections, which is a stupid and meaningless way to then go on to make the claims Progressives are attempting to make.

Drop it with me. I reject the comparison. The Red State/Blue State meme is nothing but a fabricated Progressive Meme that has no meaningful use. Put R Vs. D meme in the desperation column.

Good morning, ocean515. :2wave:

There is a reason that red states generally are more successful - they tend to be more fiscally responsible, and attract like-minded people. A hard-working "redneck bible-thumping" laborer is not the guy who has time to riot and burn buildings to the ground - he's too busy minding his own business, because his success or failure is up to him. It does make sense, in a sad way, that those who have to depend on government to take care of them seem to be the most dissatisfied people in this country! This is the "utopia" that some are striving for? :shock:

Job creation and business success can't be easy for companies to accomplish when they are "ruled and regulated" like they are today. We have sufficient laws on the books already to assure low pollution and clean water - now they are nitpicking to justify their own jobs! No wonder companies flee to other countries to survive - which leaves American workers jobless and on food stamps to survive! :thumbdown:
 
Good morning, ocean515. :2wave:

There is a reason that red states generally are more successful - they tend to be more fiscally responsible, and attract like-minded people. A hard-working "redneck bible-thumping" laborer is not the guy who has time to riot and burn buildings to the ground - he's too busy minding his own business, because his success or failure is up to him. It does make sense, in a sad way, that those who have to depend on government to take care of them seem to be the most dissatisfied people in this country! This is the "utopia" that some are striving for? :shock:

Job creation and business success can't be easy for companies to accomplish when they are "ruled and regulated" like they are today. We have sufficient laws on the books already to assure low pollution and clean water - now they are nitpicking to justify their own jobs! No wonder companies flee to other countries to survive - which leaves American workers jobless and on food stamps to survive! :thumbdown:

Everyone should cringe when a new "agency" is created. They are staffed by people who see their mission as one to come up with more "solutions" to the "solutions" that have already been established. From my experience, these new solutions don't have to be better, they just have to "be" in order to justify the money spent creating them.

This Red State/Blue State meme the Progressive Machine invented is so remarkably hypocritical that it's obvious the only purpose is to give the low-information citizens they attract some kind of basis for their support. For example, California is considered a solid Blue state, yet it is home to the highest poverty, as measured by todays standards, in the country. So what should be derived from that?

For a political ideology that loves to talk about equality for the cultures of the world, it's remarkable how prejudice they are against cultures in their own country. Complete hypocrisy.
 
If one looks at the history of states over decades, the colors can and do switch. If one looks at how these colors are assigned, it's based on recent elections, which is a stupid and meaningless way to then go on to make the claims Progressives are attempting to make..

PROVE IT. You made the assertion, so back it up. Urban areas are ALWAYS generally more educated, more prosperous than rural areas. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking, urban areas - and the region surrounding those urban areas known todays as 'suburbs' - have always been generally more educated and more prosperous. This is true throughout ALL human history, in ALL cultures, in ALL nations.

But you say this is not so, that it's some kind of red-state/blue-state meme when I told you already that it's not a matter of politics. So sit back and start digging to find proof that rural areas have EVER been generally more educated or more prosperous than urban areas.
 
PROVE IT. You made the assertion, so back it up. Urban areas are ALWAYS generally more educated, more prosperous than rural areas. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking, urban areas - and the region surrounding those urban areas known todays as 'suburbs' - have always been generally more educated and more prosperous. This is true throughout ALL human history, in ALL cultures, in ALL nations.

But you say this is not so, that it's some kind of red-state/blue-state meme when I told you already that it's not a matter of politics. So sit back and start digging to find proof that rural areas have EVER been generally more educated or more prosperous than urban areas.

Pffft. Please GC. You're inventing statments again. Nowhere have I made a statement that rural areas are populated by more educated people. So back off with the PROVE IT stuff.

The bottom line is who cares? Of course Urban areas are populated by more educated people. Banking, business, etc., tend to be concentrated in urban areas, the suburbs surrounding them are typically populated by those who support those enterprises. Such things typically take more educational effort to be successful at.

So, what the heck does that prove? Zero, nada, nothing.

Stunning how Progressives use such absurd comparisons to hide their dismal results.
 
Pffft. Please GC. You're inventing statments again. Nowhere have I made a statement that rural areas are populated by more educated people. So back off with the PROVE IT stuff.

The bottom line is who cares? Of course Urban areas are populated by more educated people. Banking, business, etc., tend to be concentrated in urban areas, the suburbs surrounding them are typically populated by those who support those enterprises. Such things typically take more educational effort to be successful at.

So, what the heck does that prove? Zero, nada, nothing.

Stunning how Progressives use such absurd comparisons to hide their dismal results.

What it DOES show - if you're half as objective as you seem to believe - is that urban areas are almost without exception MORE liberal than rural areas, and rural areas are almost without exception MORE conservative than urban areas. This is true all through human history, all over the planet.

You also know that it's only since the early 1990's that the two parties began to really polarize into liberal or conservative. Even as late as the 80's, the GOP had some liberal politicians, and even right now there are still a very, very few conservative Democratic politicians. Whatever you want to claim about what states were red or blue or purple or whatever, the URBAN areas (and the suburban areas close to them) have almost always been more liberal than the RURAL areas, which are almost always more conservative.

This isn't even a political argument - this is rather simple sociology. How it applies to politics is that because the two major parties have polarized into liberal and conservative, the Dems are now mostly representing those areas with a higher standard of living, and the GOP is now mostly representing those areas with a lower standard of living. That statement might tick you off...but at some level you know it's true.
 
Seems reasonable, but the specifics will be where contention arises, I suspect.

Current outflow structure has entrenched interests whose incentives are not attached to the actual efficiency or effectiveness of the programs they serve. Imagine if nothing else how many federal workers, lobbyists, and "advocacy" groups would be instantly out of a job if we were to convert federal transfer payments to a simple streamlined cash transfer to those living in low-income situations. Also, it is an issue easily demagogued. Low income citizens are also disproportionately low information voters, easily convinced that Evil So and So's in Washington Are Out To Take Away Their [fill-in-the-blank].

But as the point appears to be that "family" isn't doing it's assigned tasks correctly, and I suspect any measures to improve matters in that area may take decades, some kind of stopgap measure must be used.

True enough. But those measures themselves should not disincentivize successful family formation or for that matter, any major positive behavior.
 
Low income citizens are also disproportionately low information voters, easily convinced that Evil So and So's in Washington Are Out To Take Away Their [fill-in-the-blank].

I agree wholeheartedly! BTW, wouldn't that generally apply, then, to the voters in the poorest states?
 
I agree wholeheartedly! BTW, wouldn't that generally apply, then, to the voters in the poorest states?

:shrug: it would apply to the lowest income voters, particularly and is more likely to be a successful tactic in areas where low-income voters are more likely to feel like low income voters due to high income discrepancy and are more likely to be on means-tested programs. California and New York are excellent examples.
 
What it DOES show - if you're half as objective as you seem to believe - is that urban areas are almost without exception MORE liberal than rural areas, and rural areas are almost without exception MORE conservative than urban areas. This is true all through human history, all over the planet.

You also know that it's only since the early 1990's that the two parties began to really polarize into liberal or conservative. Even as late as the 80's, the GOP had some liberal politicians, and even right now there are still a very, very few conservative Democratic politicians. Whatever you want to claim about what states were red or blue or purple or whatever, the URBAN areas (and the suburban areas close to them) have almost always been more liberal than the RURAL areas, which are almost always more conservative.

This isn't even a political argument - this is rather simple sociology. How it applies to politics is that because the two major parties have polarized into liberal and conservative, the Dems are now mostly representing those areas with a higher standard of living, and the GOP is now mostly representing those areas with a lower standard of living. That statement might tick you off...but at some level you know it's true.

What an absurd statement. Thanks for your opinion. The exchange here has been most enlightening. It's interesting to me to see how an ideologue scrambles to hang on to their beliefs, no matter what facts are presented to them.
 
:shrug: it would apply to the lowest income voters, particularly and is more likely to be a successful tactic in areas where low-income voters are more likely to feel like low income voters due to high income discrepancy and are more likely to be on means-tested programs. California and New York are excellent examples.

You don't think that low-income voters in Mississippi and Louisiana feel like they have a low income? And FYI, people in red states are significantly more likely to be on food stamps than people in blue states.
 
What an absurd statement. Thanks for your opinion. The exchange here has been most enlightening. It's interesting to me to see how an ideologue scrambles to hang on to their beliefs, no matter what facts are presented to them.

I presented the argument to you that it's not even truly a political matter, that doesn't even lay the blame at the feet of conservatives...and you still are offended at the very concept that there might be a difference in the standards of living between relatively-urban and relatively-rural states, and the sociology therein that leads to the kinds of politicians they elect.

In other words, you've made up your mind and no amount of hard data can change it.
 
I presented the argument to you that it's not even truly a political matter, that doesn't even lay the blame at the feet of conservatives...and you still are offended at the very concept that there might be a difference in the standards of living between relatively-urban and relatively-rural states, and the sociology therein that leads to the kinds of politicians they elect.

In other words, you've made up your mind and no amount of hard data can change it.

I've thanked you for your opinion. I think that is enough. I categorically reject your attempt to assign education levels with party affiliation. It's absurd, and frankly quite gross.

I think you've spent enough time obsessing on this matter. Probably time to obsess over some other issue you hope to convince others is real.
 
:shrug: it would apply to the lowest income voters, particularly and is more likely to be a successful tactic in areas where low-income voters are more likely to feel like low income voters due to high income discrepancy and are more likely to be on means-tested programs. California and New York are excellent examples.

Nice sidestep away from a trap.

I gotta give credit when due.
 
I agreed to all options, because I think it always depends on the person in question. ;)
 
Education. That wasn't an option. Education is key. Affordable education.
 
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?
This still presupposes that marriage will create jobs....it still put the cart (marriage) in front of the horse (employment).
 
Elimination of all government-run anti-poverty and welfare programs combined with individual liberty and personal responsibility.
 
Does anybody else look at the results of this poll without feeling your heart sink and being tempted to throw up your hands in despair? Do the folks on the left really outnumber the conservatives and libertarians (little "L") that much?
 
Does anybody else look at the results of this poll without feeling your heart sink and being tempted to throw up your hands in despair? Do the folks on the left really outnumber the conservatives and libertarians (little "L") that much?

I read the results and see more pro freedom votes than nanny state collectivist votes
 
I read the results and see more pro freedom votes than nanny state collectivist votes

You do? I see government programs, entitlements, and taxation as the categories that received the huge lion's share of the votes????
 
You do? I see government programs, entitlements, and taxation as the categories that received the huge lion's share of the votes????

I am talking about actual members voting.

I don't care about the spam votes of non members. Liberals tend to do that crap
 
This still presupposes that marriage will create jobs....it still put the cart (marriage) in front of the horse (employment).

IMO, marriage DOES create jobs because the more marriage with two parent homes there is, the less crime there is and the more prosperous and stable the community will be and a better quality of life the community will have. That in turn is a powerful lure for existing businesses to move into an area and new businesses to start up.
 
Last edited:
I am talking about actual members voting.

I don't care about the spam votes of non members. Liberals tend to do that crap

How do you determine that so many are spam votes? And why are non registered members of a forum able to vote in a poll?
 
You do? I see government programs, entitlements, and taxation as the categories that received the huge lion's share of the votes????
A leftist thing? No. Poverty is caused by not having money ... that's it.

The cure for poverty is, would you believe it, ensuring that everyone has wealth. Obviously poverty is then complicated and entrenched by how the lack of wealth causes instability in the affected communities and families; and how it likewise destabilizes individuals' lives (e.g. not being able to afford healthcare = higher susceptibility to disease / work disabilities ) which leads to the cyclical effect of poverty.

Regardless options in the poll like "personal liberty" or "freedom from coercion/association" or "free markets" while being vitally important for our freedoms, have absolutely nothing to do with eliminating poverty, because they don't address the root cause of poverty: the lack of wealth.
 
Does anybody else look at the results of this poll without feeling your heart sink and being tempted to throw up your hands in despair? Do the folks on the left really outnumber the conservatives and libertarians (little "L") that much?

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

They - not necessarily including the people here on DP - have held the microphones longer and have been more successful in getting their message out about social issues that they feel should be addressed - but if the midterms are any indication, that may be changing nationwide. Voters seem to be more concerned about personal pocket-book issues these days than ever before, and I'm talking about the people I know and discuss things with - while social issues are taking a back seat, since they're been rehashed for years, almost to the point of tune-out and general disinterest today. We shall see.
 
Back
Top Bottom