• 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!

Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

I should note that the number of winners is not really relevant. I said i prefer a society where some can win rather than everyone being forced into mediocrity. I tried out for two olympic teams knowing that in my sport and in my country I had about a one in four chance of making it (I didn't) and then about a one in 20 chance of winning a medal if I made the team. Bad odds but what I learned training for that (and all the other tournaments I won along the way including two america's cups) was very worthwhile. The left often seems to engage in a cynical view that people shouldn't try to win because the game is rigged against them and they are better off not expending the effort and letting the dem party and a dem run government taking care of them while many of us on the right argue that working hard and trying to win has massive benefits for both the individual and society even if most of those who try don't win

a nation where everyone tries to be an olympic track or swimming or boxing or table tennis or badminton athlete is going to be far more healthy than one where everyone sits on their collective asses figuring its not worth the sweat and muscle aches given the odds against making the team.

likewise, we have a far more prosperous nation where everyone tries to be self sufficient and economically independent if not "rich" than one where everyone sits around waiting for the welfare check
 
If I have more, I win. ;)

Do I need to define win for you? :2funny:

Seriously, that's good, but that group is shrinking and not growing. That's the point. Ideally, just like in grading, you'd like a nice curve with most in the middle. If you have most at the ends, and the middle small, there is likely a problem. This really isn't complicated.

Win is for an instance and is not permanent.
It just doesn't work they way you said it.

There is no permanent winner, except for the people happy with their income level and lifestyle.
 
Yes, we know that. But is the gap studily grows, that is different. And I haven't mentioned reasons at all yet, though I suspect policy that favors wealthy and business play a role.

You too shouldn't make leaps as you're no better than TD at it.

why do you keep telling others what they are good at. shall we discuss spelling? really it is you making the leaps poorly when you talked about the NUMBER of winners in response to my point about wanting a society where people CAN win rather than being forced into mediocrity
 
Yes, we know that. But if the gap studily grows, that is different. And I haven't mentioned reasons at all yet, though I suspect policy that favors wealthy and business play a role among many reasons.

You too shouldn't make leaps as you're no better than TD at it.

My leaps are better than yours. ;)

I suspect changes to the law, like the expansion of credit in the 1970's following the FCRA and also in the 1980's with mortgage interest being tax deductible.
 
I should note that the number of winners is not really relevant. I said i prefer a society where some can win rather than everyone being forced into mediocrity. I tried out for two olympic teams knowing that in my sport and in my country I had about a one in four chance of making it (I didn't) and then about a one in 20 chance of winning a medal if I made the team. Bad odds but what I learned training for that (and all the other tournaments I won along the way including two america's cups) was very worthwhile. The left often seems to engage in a cynical view that people shouldn't try to win because the game is rigged against them and they are better off not expending the effort and letting the dem party and a dem run government taking care of them while many of us on the right argue that working hard and trying to win has massive benefits for both the individual and society even if most of those who try don't win

a nation where everyone tries to be an olympic track or swimming or boxing or table tennis or badminton athlete is going to be far more healthy than one where everyone sits on their collective asses figuring its not worth the sweat and muscle aches given the odds against making the team.

likewise, we have a far more prosperous nation where everyone tries to be self sufficient and economically independent if not "rich" than one where everyone sits around waiting for the welfare check

I haven't heard anyone argue that they want a society where one can't win. In fact, while you may fond someone, that number is about as smaller as those who win. It is bad form to misrepresent the argument. Someone noted earliy that it was not about everyone being equal, but about equity, a very different word. So, you wrote a lot up there that has nothing to with what hardly anyone is arguing and nothing at all addressing what I have said. How should I respond to that?
 
If I have more, I win. ;)

Do I need to define win for you? :2funny:

Seriously, that's good, but that group is shrinking and not growing. That's the point. Ideally, just like in grading, you'd like a nice curve with most in the middle. If you have most at the ends, and the middle small, there is likely a problem. This really isn't complicated.

win is how you define it for yourself

I suspect you don't have much of an athletic background but its a matter of perspective

If I go into a tournament as the 32nd seed in a field of 64 and I get to the quarter finals I would consider that a win. If I am the #1 seed I would consider it a LOSS. If I come from the ghetto and went to a third rate HS school and make Honors at a good public university that is a clear win. If I have an IQ of 165 and graduated valedictorian of a top prep school mere honors at a decent state university would be failure.
 
My leaps are better than yours. ;)

I suspect changes to the law, like the expansion of credit in the 1970's following the FCRA and also in the 1980's with mortgage interest being tax deductible.

That's why I try not to leap. ;)

Perhaps, and more. From corporate welfare, to trying to control the economy by making up for low wages with credit, the idea itself, would also be among the reasons. Government likely should favor no one, but if it were going to, I'd argue the middle class would have been a better choice.
 
win is how you define it for yourself

I suspect you don't have much of an athletic background but its a matter of perspective

If I go into a tournament as the 32nd seed in a field of 64 and I get to the quarter finals I would consider that a win. If I am the #1 seed I would consider it a LOSS. If I come from the ghetto and went to a third rate HS school and make Honors at a good public university that is a clear win. If I have an IQ of 165 and graduated valedictorian of a top prep school mere honors at a decent state university would be failure.

Really, in the game of football I determine if we win or not? Hell, I just won the superbowl!!!!!!

Sure, I like improvement, and I compete with myself more than anythingelse, but let's face it, if I'm coach of the KC Chief's, I'd better have a few real wins if I'm going to keep my job.
 
Who is the winner of football, baseball, soccer, etc?

Each game has but one winner. If the game is economic success, that is one game and not three. In the game of get it all, only one will. But, you and he miss the point. I don't even say that is the game. I say that it shoudl not be the game. That we should seek more and put less emphasis on winning that game.
 
That's why I try not to leap. ;)

Perhaps, and more. From corporate welfare, to trying to control the economy by making up for low wages with credit, the idea itself, would also be among the reasons. Government likely should favor no one, but if it were going to, I'd argue the middle class would have been a better choice.

The FCRA was done to prevent discrimination in credit lending.
The problem is that it may have loosened standards, too much.

It's an unexpected consequence of government legislation, that had broad and sweeping effects.
Keeping up with the Jones was easier than ever, to the point of moral hazard, by both lenders and borrowers.
 
Each game has but one winner. If the game is economic success, that is one game and not three. In the game of get it all, only one will. But, you and he miss the point. I don't even say that is the game. I say that it shoudl not be the game. That we should seek more and put less emphasis on winning that game.

Is the team who won in the first game series, the same that won in this game series?
Have they won every single game forever?

Winning is what you make it, I consider myself a winner, based on my income and the lifestyle I'm able to afford with it, especially when my peers struggle at the same level.
Why am I a winner, because I have fiscal discipline.
 
The article I gave you said:

Florida's unemployment rate remains far higher than the 9.1 percent national average.

And then it said this:

Recently, both a Tax Foundation study and University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith have argued that reducing taxes has no discernible impact on job growth.

It's not hard to find evidence to support such a view. Other states with much higher corporate tax rates — Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey — all enjoy significantly lower jobless numbers, as well as hosting the corporate headquarters of many more Fortune 500 companies per capita.
Tax cuts don't create jobs - Tampa Bay Times

Sorry, the numbers based upon the states presented don't support that. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not but cherry picking one state and then coming to conclusions based upon that is more than a little flawed.
 
The FCRA was done to prevent discrimination in credit lending.
The problem is that it may have loosened standards, too much.

It's an unexpected consequence of government legislation, that had broad and sweeping effects.
Keeping up with the Jones was easier than ever, to the point of moral hazard, by both lenders and borrowers.

WHo said it was unintended? Business needs buyers more than tax cuts. I think our leaders really know that. Worker wages couldn't go for ever, and unions fell out of favor, like with reason. Still, you need buyers. Credit needed to eb expanded, or the economy gets worse. Less people are hired, and the cycle gets rather bleak.

Charrrrrge it!!!!!

And we need this attitude of keeping up with the Jones'. It encourages consumerism. Like I said, business is very short sighted at times.
 
Sorry, the numbers based upon the states presented don't support that. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not but cherry picking one state and then coming to conclusions based upon that is more than a little flawed.

No one is cherry picking. Flordia was used because it was a florida article. That is why I gave you other articles.
 
WHo said it was unintended? Business needs buyers more than tax cuts. I think our leaders really know that. Worker wages couldn't go for ever, and unions fell out of favor, like with reason. Still, you need buyers. Credit needed to eb expanded, or the economy gets worse. Less people are hired, and the cycle gets rather bleak.

Charrrrrge it!!!!!

And we need this attitude of keeping up with the Jones'. It encourages consumerism. Like I said, business is very short sighted at times.

It was unintended, because it was meant to allow consumers access to their credit reports to fix errors and it also outlawed arbitrary discrimination on credit granting and reporting.
 
No one is cherry picking. Flordia was used because it was a florida article. That is why I gave you other articles.

And if they would have used another state instead? What was it? North Dakota? What conclusions would we then come up with?
 
It was unintended, because it was meant to allow consumers access to their credit reports to fix errors and it also outlawed arbitrary discrimination on credit granting and reporting.

Yes, I know. And it wasn't the only effort. But do try to hear what I'm saying. :coffeepap
 
And if they would have used another state instead? What was it? North Dakota? What conclusions would we then come up with?

None of the other articles use Florida. All did studies and came to the same conclusion. They can find no evidence tax cuts create jobs. I think I gave you six or seven articles, and told you there was even more. Florida was only mentioned because that one article was in dealing with an issue in Florida.
 
Yes, I know. And it wasn't the only effort. But do try to hear what I'm saying. :coffeepap

I do hear what you were saying, but I wholly disagree.
Credit was actually pretty common in the 1800's,however, credit reporting nationwide was not.

The problem was, that some underwriters and other people involved in the credit keeping and granting market used arbitrary discrimination, that the government outlawed.
It was an unintended side effect, that people would be granted more credit than they should of used.

It's not a mass conspiracy.
 
the rich dems who are creating addiction to government handouts are actively ruining this country so they can win elections and with it get the wealth and power they derive from holding public office

I know exactly what you said and this just verifies that I was correct so again why not quit dodging and give a straight answer

So you think providing basic necessities to American citizens is an effort to make them equal? BTW I am still waiting for you to explain why you should not pay more when you use facilities and laws supported by all tax payers.
 
I do hear what you were saying, but I wholly disagree.
Credit was actually pretty common in the 1800's,however, credit reporting nationwide was not.

The problem was, that some underwriters and other people involved in the credit keeping and granting market used arbitrary discrimination, that the government outlawed.
It was an unintended side effect, that people would be granted more credit than they should of used.

It's not a mass conspiracy.

I was around in the 80's.

Nor do I claim a mass conspiracy, exactly. Only that it was part of their thinking. They always concern themselves with how to increase business and keep people working, and I would bet there were lobbists right there, pushing, and knowing it would increase sales.
 
None of the other articles use Florida. All did studies and came to the same conclusion. They can find no evidence tax cuts create jobs. I think I gave you six or seven articles, and told you there was even more. Florida was only mentioned because that one article was in dealing with an issue in Florida.

Your examples showed it did. Every state outside of one had a lower unemployment rate than those with higher taxes. :shrug:
 
I was around in the 80's.

Nor do I claim a mass conspiracy, exactly. Only that it was part of their thinking. They always concern themselves with how to increase business and keep people working, and I would bet there were lobbists right there, pushing, and knowing it would increase sales.

This actually happened in 1970, at least with the FCRA.
Reading the intent of the legislation, would not have one necessarily believe that credit standards would be loosened for individuals, but that's generally what happened, in my opinion.
 
This actually happened in 1970, at least with the FCRA.
Reading the intent of the legislation, would not have one necessarily believe that credit standards would be loosened for individuals, but that's generally what happened, in my opinion.

Well, I was around then as well. ;)

Wouldn't they? It allows correction, which allows a second bite, which would make more people eligiable, and likely hide some issues.

Still, our problems are not just related to the 70's or the 80's. And every effort has been made to make sure people had access to credit, even if it is rento own, and real ripoff of the poorer folks in our country.
 
I know exactly what you said and this just verifies that I was correct so again why not quit dodging and give a straight answer

I cannot help it if you want to derail the direction I was taking the thread and you cannot understand what I was saying.

I don't use anything more than you do but I suspect I pay more taxes a month than you do in several years
 
Back
Top Bottom