• 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!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

pinqy said:
Why are you refusing to define your terms? First you haven't established that there is a war on poverty, then, we can't say if simple poverty can or should be solved without knowing what you mean, we can't know if if a market friendly is workable without knowing what is market friendly, etc

Really, we could have moved past this if you would even half try to be half reasonable.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that. I thought you had some understanding of the concepts involved.

Here is a background on our Warfare-State, War on Poverty:

The War on Poverty is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent. The speech led the United States Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act, which established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administer the local application of federal funds targeted against poverty.

As a part of the Great Society, Johnson believed in expanding the government's role in education and health care as poverty reduction strategies.[1] These policies can also be seen as a continuation of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which ran from 1933 to 1935, and the Four Freedoms of 1941.

Source: War on Poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Here is some info, in a nutshell:

Fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. Since then, Washington has created dozens of programs and spent trillions of dollars. But few people have stopped to ask, “Are they working?”

In “The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later,” the House Budget Committee majority staff starts to answer that question.

There are at least 92 federal programs designed to help lower-income Americans. For instance, there are dozens of education and job-training programs, 17 different food-aid programs, and over 20 housing programs. The federal government spent $799 billion on these programs in fiscal year 2012.

Source: The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later | Budget.House.Gov
Click to expand...

In any case, it is about simplification of our already existing public policies by using Socialism to bailout Capitalism, with existing legal and physical infrastructure.
 
danielpalos said:
Sorry about that. I thought you had some understanding of the concepts involved.

Here is a background on our Warfare-State, War on Poverty:



Here is some info, in a nutshell:



In any case, it is about simplification of our already existing public policies by using Socialism to bailout Capitalism, with existing legal and physical infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Ok, I am familiar with Johnson's declaration of "War on Poverty," but you seemed to be talking about it as as a single thing…a cohesive program. Which, of course, it's not.
 
danielpalos said:
Let's just assume that simple poverty can be solved in a market friendly manner, for now. Why do you believe actually solving simple poverty would not be a better promotion of the general welfare than waging an exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty for around a generation?
Click to expand...
I don't know what the hell "simple poverty" is.

How can you ask me to make a decision on whether to support solving it or not when you haven't explained what it is, yet?
 
pinqy said:
Ok, I am familiar with Johnson's declaration of "War on Poverty," but you seemed to be talking about it as as a single thing…a cohesive program. Which, of course, it's not.
Click to expand...

I know. It is why I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.
 
The Mark said:
You're still talking to yourself, convinced it's me?
Click to expand...

No. That would require a subscription to subjective moral values. I am just putting it out there to work on my propaganda and rhetoric, and for cya purposes regarding this topic. Even my propaganda and rhetoric is usually enough with posters on this site.
 
The Mark said:
I don't know what the hell "simple poverty" is.

How can you ask me to make a decision on whether to support solving it or not when you haven't explained what it is, yet?
Click to expand...

Let's just say that simple poverty occurs simply, such as due to unemployment. A truer form of unemployment compensation would merely Use socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, and solve for simple poverty when due to a simple lack of employment and the simple poverty associated with a simple lack of income in our Institution of money based markets.
 
danielpalos said:
Let's just say that simple poverty occurs simply, such as due to unemployment.
A truer form of unemployment compensation would merely Use socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, and solve for simple poverty when due to a simple lack of employment and the simple poverty associated with a simple lack of income in our Institution of money based markets.
Click to expand...

Why cant you expand on your vague and highly generic talking points ?

Why cant you quantify the "effectiveness" of the drek you post here on a daily basis ?

Why can't you give one example of "socialism bailing out Capitalism " ?

So far your post are the definition of spam.
 
Fenton said:
Why cant you expand on your vague and highly generic talking points ?

Why cant you quantify the "effectiveness" of the drek you post here on a daily basis ?

Why can't you give one example of "socialism bailing out Capitalism " ?

So far your post are the definition of spam.
Click to expand...

Sure. Let's just say that simple poverty occurs simply, such as due to unemployment.
A truer form of unemployment compensation would merely Use socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, and solve for simple poverty when due to a simple lack of employment and the simple poverty associated with a simple lack of income in our Institution of money based markets.

The effectiveness would solving simple poverty.

That is Socialism bailing out Capitalism.

It helps if you understand the concepts.
 
danielpalos said:
Sure. Let's just say that simple poverty occurs simply, such as due to unemployment.
A truer form of unemployment compensation would merely Use socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, and solve for simple poverty when due to a simple lack of employment and the simple poverty associated with a simple lack of income in our Institution of money based markets.

The effectiveness would solving simple poverty.

That is Socialism bailing out Capitalism.

It helps if you understand the concepts.
Click to expand...
Are you just cutting and pasting or something? That main sentence doesn't make much sense.

"And solve for simple poverty when due to a simple lack of employment and the simple poverty associated with a simple lack of income on our Institution of money based markets."

What the hell does that mean? Seems like 2 sentences jammed together.

And you keep using "simple poverty". Did I miss you defining that?
 
The part daniel seems to miss, is that a sizable amount of generational welfare recipients will not, will never do what is necessary to make a living for themselves...Look at the attitude of people like daniel, Socialism? What is the main tennant of Socialism? 'From those who have, to those who have not'....That says nothing about a job.....
 
danielpalos said:
Sure. Let's just say that simple poverty
occurs simply, such as due to unemployment.
A truer form of unemployment compensation would merely Use socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, and solve for simple poverty when due to a simple lack of employment and the simple poverty associated with a simple lack of income in our Institution of money based markets.

The effectiveness would solving simple poverty.

That is Socialism bailing out Capitalism.

It helps if you understand the concepts.
Click to expand...


"Sure, I can expand on my generic drek "..

" blah blah blah use Socialism to bail out Capitalism blah blah blah , blah blah blah "

Why are you spamming this thread ?
 
Fenton said:
"Sure, I can expand on my generic drek "..

" blah blah blah use Socialism to bail out Capitalism blah blah blah , blah blah blah "

Why are you spamming this thread ?
Click to expand...

It helps if you understand the concepts. You may want to start with the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will. Let me know when my simple argument makes simple sense.
 
danielpalos said:
It helps if you understand the concepts.
You may want to start with the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will. Let me know when my simple argument makes simple sense.
Click to expand...

Your "simple arguments" are spamming this thread.
 
Fenton said:
Your "simple arguments" are spamming this thread.
Click to expand...

Did you know that non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies, and that form of Spam, regarding discovering sublime Truth (value)?

It helps if you understand the concepts. You may want to start with the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will

You are welcome to cede the point and the argument you couldn't come up with, with your next fallacy.
 
danielpalos said:
It helps if you understand the concepts.
Click to expand...
See, here's the thing...we can't understand the concepts if you don't state SPECIFICALLY which concepts you're using, especially since you're using non-standard ideas such as "simple poverty" which is not a concept in any of my econ classes or professional work including poverty statistics. I can't find anyone anywhere using the term "simple poverty" as a concept besides you. The 3 basic concepts of poverty are
  1. Absolute: a defined level below which basic needs cannot be met.
  2. Relative: a level of poverty compared to the rest of the society....usually seen as a percent of the median income.
  3. Subjective: how the individual considers him/herself in terms of poverty.
So how does "simple poverty" fit in? Give a definition. How can you have a concept you're unable to define, especially since you're the one who made it up.
 
pinqy said:
See, here's the thing...we can't understand the concepts if you don't state SPECIFICALLY which concepts you're using, especially since you're using non-standard ideas such as "simple poverty" which is not a concept in any of my econ classes or professional work including poverty statistics. I can't find anyone anywhere using the term "simple poverty" as a concept besides you. The 3 basic concepts of poverty are
  1. Absolute: a defined level below which basic needs cannot be met.
  2. Relative: a level of poverty compared to the rest of the society....usually seen as a percent of the median income.
  3. Subjective: how the individual considers him/herself in terms of poverty.
So how does "simple poverty" fit in? Give a definition. How can you have a concept you're unable to define, especially since you're the one who made it up.
Click to expand...

It helps if you understand the concepts. You may want to start with the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will
 
danielpalos said:
It helps if you understand the concepts. You may want to start with the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will
Click to expand...

I am well familiar with the concept and doctrine. "Simple poverty" is nowhere to be found. Now define "simple poverty." Why is it so hard for you do do so?
 
danielpalos said:
It helps if you understand the concepts. You may want to start with the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will
Click to expand...
I suspect that you, danielpalos, do not understand the concepts.

Your actions appear to support this theory.
 
pinqy said:
I am well familiar with the concept and doctrine. "Simple poverty" is nowhere to be found. Now define "simple poverty." Why is it so hard for you do do so?
Click to expand...

It has to do with unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines under our form of Socialism which is used to bailout Capitalism on a regular basis, by utilizing the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will.
 
danielpalos said:
It has to do with unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines under our form of Socialism which is used to bailout Capitalism on a regular basis, by utilizing the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will.
Click to expand...

Quit evading. No "it has to do with..." give an actual definition.
 
pinqy said:
Why would you have to make one up now? How could you have been using a term you didn't have a definition for?
Click to expand...

Simply because you want to quibble. Otherwise, most posters who are actually interested in discovering sublime Truth (value) through argumentation, would have actually understood the concepts involved, so they could see for themselves, how simple it really is.

In any case, it is about full employment of resources in the market for labor. Solving simple poverty, can be correcting for Capitalism's laziness regarding better ensuring full employment of resources in the market for labor.

The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our republic via a federal doctrine regarding employment at will, and State at-will employment laws.
 
danielpalos said:
Simply because you want to quibble.
Click to expand...
It's not quibbling to ask someone what they mean by a non-standard term not used by anyone else.

[quteo]Otherwise, most posters who are actually interested in discovering sublime Truth (value) through argumentation, would have actually understood the concepts involved, so they could see for themselves, how simple it really is.[/quote]Nobody else knows what you mean by the term either.

In any case, it is about full employment of resources in the market for labor.
Click to expand...
That's not a definition. And then you have to define what YOU mean by "full emplloyment" (which is a standard term, but I suspect you're not using the standard definition) and specifically which resources you mean.

Solving simple poverty, can be correcting for Capitalism's laziness regarding better ensuring full employment of resources in the market for labor.
Click to expand...
Well, depending on what exactly you mean and what specific remedy you're proposing, how would you account for the ineffeficient use of resources and decrease in productivity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom