• 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 limping back to strength

phattonez said:
This one isn't necessarily true. It just depends on your definition of poverty. There aren't really any people in this country that are in poverty. People in poverty aren't getting the things that they need to live. Are there poor people though? Of course.
Click to expand...

Very True, So I would add the caveat, "the generally accepted American standard of poverty that is really poverty but it sounds good when politicians say it."
 
phattonez said:
I know how it can ALLEVIATE underemployment (though is it really worth the cost?), but how does it eliminate unemployment?
Click to expand...

I am happy to see you picked up it's effects on underemployment!

Capitalism creates a natural occurrence of involuntary unemployment, of which social safety nets help alleviate its symptoms. By alleviating some of the symptoms, human capital degradation is reduced. Have you ever wondered why it is so hard for a homeless person to obtain employment?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I am happy to see you picked up it's effects on underemployment!
Click to expand...

Well yeah, I'm not going to be dishonest in a debate.

Capitalism creates a natural occurrence of involuntary unemployment, of which social safety nets help alleviate its symptoms. By alleviating some of the symptoms, human capital degradation is reduced. Have you ever wondered why it is so hard for a homeless person to obtain employment?
Click to expand...

But are the resources that we put into welfare offset by the positives produced by reducing undermployment?
 
phattonez said:
Why exactly?
Click to expand...

Your n equalities are based on opinion. Poverty would be much more severe if a major income source for the poor was eliminated. Therefore it is invalid to state that the poor aggregate is greater without social safety nets.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Your n equalities are based on opinion. Poverty would be much more severe if a major income source for the poor was eliminated. Therefore it is invalid to state that the poor aggregate is greater without social safety nets.
Click to expand...

Wait whaaa? Poverty more severe without welfare? Yes. I don't think I understand what you said after. There will be more poor people with welfare because welfare incentivizes being poor.
 
phattonez said:
But are the resources that we put into welfare offset by the positives produced by reducing undermployment?
Click to expand...

You forgot involuntary unemployment. Would you agree that social safety nets
prevent successful marxist revolutions?
 
phattonez said:
Wait whaaa? Poverty more severe without welfare? Yes. I don't think I understand what you said after. There will be more poor people with welfare because welfare incentivizes being poor.
Click to expand...

At a certain point yes as evident by parts of Europe. But welfare at certain limits does not. Especially when the amounts are barely enough to keep you fed, clothed and housed. And especially when your neighbor is getting money from the government as incentive for him making money.
 
obvious Child said:
At a certain point yes as evident by parts of Europe. But welfare at certain limits does not. Especially when the amounts are barely enough to keep you fed, clothed and housed. And especially when your neighbor is getting money from the government as incentive for him making money.
Click to expand...

There isn't really anybody in this country who isn't getting the the things that they need.
 
phattonez said:
Wait whaaa? Poverty more severe without welfare? Yes. I don't think I understand what you said after. There will be more poor people with welfare because welfare incentivizes being poor.
Click to expand...

We are not dealing in absolutes. You have yet to consider why the "American Dream" of high wages/wealth is not a good enough incentive for chronic welfare recipients to enter the labor force. Are you aware that not all people who receive government aid do so indefinitely? If not, that might be your error.

Essentially, you are stating that poverty is a choice. Given that our capitalistic system requires involuntary unemployment, i cannot agree and you will find little evidence to support such a notion.
 
phattonez said:
How does welfare fix that?
Click to expand...

Lets keep it simple.

If you do not have food to eat, clean clothes to wear, and a place to stay; where does looking for a job rank on that list?
 
phattonez said:
There isn't really anybody in this country who isn't getting the the things that they need.
Click to expand...

You mean like the hundreds of vets who die from lack of health care insurance?
How about the insane amount of malnutritioned children in the US?
The millions of homeless?

We got problems. No question on that.
 
obvious Child said:
You mean like the hundreds of vets who die from lack of health care insurance?
How about the insane amount of malnutritioned children in the US?
The millions of homeless?

We got problems. No question on that.
Click to expand...

The insanity is we have a child obesity problem in this country, THAT'S the larger issue. And we have millions more vets who DO have health insurance, many more hundreds of millions who DO have homes.

Relatively speaking, there isn't nation that boasts a better standard of living, listen to this nonsense you're spewing. Yesteryear, they had nothing and didn't dish out half the negativities we do today...when we have everything.

Malnutritioned children in insane amounts is our issue?

The problem of childhood obesity in the United States has grown considerably in recent years. Between 16 and 33 percent of children and adolescents are obese. Obesity is among the easiest medical conditions to recognize but most difficult to treat. Unhealthy weight gain due to poor diet and lack of exercise is responsible for over 300,000 deaths each year. The annual cost to society for obesity is estimated at nearly $100 billion. Overweight children are much more likely to become overweight adults unless they adopt and maintain healthier patterns of eating and exercise.
Click to expand...

Obesity In Children And Teens | American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

I think a personal responsibility issue exists, that is our issue. It's clear a health care public plan would be the WORST strat, I would think a more accountable and responsbile solution to our 'problems' is called for.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Lets keep it simple.

If you do not have food to eat, clean clothes to wear, and a place to stay; where does looking for a job rank on that list?
Click to expand...

Pretty damn high on my list since I want to be able to eat, clean my clothes and acquire some shelter. these things require an income.
 
Charles Martel said:
And why is that? Should there be someone handing it to them?
Click to expand...

Ever been to a skid row? There are a lot of people just handing them the things that they need.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
We are not dealing in absolutes. You have yet to consider why the "American Dream" of high wages/wealth is not a good enough incentive for chronic welfare recipients to enter the labor force. Are you aware that not all people who receive government aid do so indefinitely? If not, that might be your error.
Click to expand...

I know that all don't stay there. However, it's an incentive. Not working and getting money from welfare sounds a lot better working hard and only getting minimum wage. Wasn't it you who said that time is scarce so we can't ignore that? Hmm, maybe people factor that into their decisions.

As you said, welfare alleviates underemployment, so people may eventually find a job that is better than not working at all and only getting a small amount of money. Until then, they'll probably stay on welfare.

Essentially, you are stating that poverty is a choice. Given that our capitalistic system requires involuntary unemployment, i cannot agree and you will find little evidence to support such a notion.
Click to expand...

Involuntary unemployment? Isn't that what unemployment insurance is for?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Epic,

Areas that are impoverished have far higher crime rates (along with more police presence) than higher income areas. Your questions are a red herring, as they do nothing to strengthen your premise; they only shift the debate.

The fact remains: poverty induces crime, and poverty is determined primarily by income.

Both you and Tony have argued that it is "optimal" to eliminate our social welfare system, of which i have responded that in doing so, we will increase the crime burden (although it is not felt in proportion). The impoverished face a greater burden than the rich actually.

Have i argued that welfare traps do not exist? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Golden. I am asking you to tell me exactly what impact that those on welfare have on the Crime Rate when they run out of money. Why is this a red herring? You want to talk crime rates as they pertain to poverty and welfare, then let's go down that path.


And as for removing social welfare, I am not for that, I am all for helping those who truly need it, however, taking those off it who use it to SQUEAK by and then supplement with criminal acts are merely perpetuating a circle. Given enough time off welfare they would either die, get locked up, or take the first step to becoming functioning members of society. It's not the pretty answer, but people need to take responsibility for their actions and stop expecting handouts.
 
phattonez said:
Ever been to a skid row? There are a lot of people just handing them the things that they need.
Click to expand...

Plenty. And history has seen many more rows of skid. Give a man a fish, he eats for the day. Teach him to fish and he eats for eternity....unless someone else is willing to give it to him and then...why learn?
 
Charles Martel said:
Plenty. And history has seen many more rows of skid. Give a man a fish, he eats for the day. Teach him to fish and he eats for eternity....unless someone else is willing to give it to him and then...why learn?
Click to expand...

A modern twist on the "cow" saying: Why get the job at McDonalds when you can have the hamburger and housing for free?
 
Last edited:
Charles Martel said:
Plenty. And history has seen many more rows of skid. Give a man a fish, he eats for the day. Teach him to fish and he eats for eternity....unless someone else is willing to give it to him and then...why learn?
Click to expand...

But hey, people will die without the help of the government. ;) But then someone will say, "but skid row is nasty." Well yeah, should contributing nothing to society be something that we should make desirable?
 
Phoenix said:
Pretty damn high on my list since I want to be able to eat, clean my clothes and acquire some shelter. these things require an income.
Click to expand...

Could you rank order them? Be realistic.
 
phattonez said:
I know that all don't stay there. However, it's an incentive. Not working and getting money from welfare sounds a lot better working hard and only getting minimum wage. Wasn't it you who said that time is scarce so we can't ignore that? Hmm, maybe people factor that into their decisions.

As you said, welfare alleviates underemployment, so people may eventually find a job that is better than not working at all and only getting a small amount of money. Until then, they'll probably stay on welfare.
Click to expand...

But you continue to ignore the other incentives offered in the US. Higher wages that lead to higher standards of living. Why is welfare (little money) a greater incentive than employment (more money than welfare)?



Involuntary unemployment? Isn't that what unemployment insurance is for?
Click to expand...

Of course it is. However, you are the one who is against such measures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom